Lucky Obukohwo, Reporting
The family of Chief Michael Bello has debunked the claim that their late father, Michael Bello attended a meeting where Ukhomunyio Council of Village Head disclaimed a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allegedly written by the people of Ukhomunyio against the Okuokpellagbe.
The family made the denial through their counsel, A. O. O. Ekpu via a statement titled:Re: “Alleged disclaimer of petition to EFCC against HRM Michael Sado, Okuokpellagbe of Okpella: Rejoinder”.
Ekpu said the two persons mentioned to have attended the meeting were never present and to make matter worse, one of them was said to have died some years ago.
According to the statement “We act as Solicitors for Chief Segun Balogun and the family of (Chief Michael Bello, all of Ukhomunyio Okpella, Edo State.
“The attention of our clients has been drawn to publications that appeared in numerous news outlets
both in the regular media and social media.
“In the said publications, it was reported that the Ukhomunyio Council of Village Heads held a meeting and disclaimed a petition to the EFCC allegedly written by the people of Ukhomunyio against the Okuokpellagbe of Okpella, among the Village Heads reported to have attended the meeting are Chief Segun Balogun and Chief Michael
Bello.
“We wish to make it categorically clear that the two named village heads were not at any meetings
where the matter of petition against the Okuokpellagbe was discussed.
“Chief Segun Bello maintains that he was never aware of any such meeting. As for Chief Michael Bello, let it be known that Chief Michael Bello died on 11th May, 2024 and was buried on October 2024. It is not known that ghosts attend meetings.
“We therefore state on behalf of our clients that if any persons presented themselves as Chief Segun Bello and Chief Michael Bello at the alleged meeting, it was obviously a case of impersonation.
“Our clients demand that the security agencies should investigate the matter and bring the perpetrators to book whoever is
found culpable of the offence of impersonation”, .
