The Federal High Court in Lagos has further adjourned till
Friday the trial of a former Minister of the Federal Capital
Territory, Jumoke Akinjide, who was charged with an alleged fraud
of N650m.
Justice Muslim Hassan adjourned the case on Thursday with a
directive that the prosecution should avail the defence of all the
necessary documents.
The judge’s directive followed complaints by the defence counsel
that they had yet to be served with certain documents, including
report of investigation, which the prosecution intended to rely
upon in the case.
Akinjide, alongside two others, is facing 24 charges bordering
on conspiracy and money laundering.
The other defendants are Senator Ayo Adeseun and Chief
Olanrewaju Otiti.
The trio were arraigned on January 16, 2018 by the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission, which accused them of collecting N650m
from a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani
Alison-Madueke, in the build-up to the 2015 general elections.
The EFCC claimed that they ought to have “reasonably known that
the money formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act,” adding that
they handled it without going through a financial institution in
violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
But they pleaded not guilty.
The judge had adjourned till Thursday for continuation of trial,
after the plea bargain proposal by the defendants fell through.
At the resumed proceedings on Thursday, however, the defence
counsel, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Michael Lana and Oladeji
Akinola, raised objections to the competence of an investigative
officer with the EFCC, Usman Zakari, to testify as a witness in the
case.
The defence counsel contended that Zakari’s statement was not
front-loaded as part of the proof of evidence made available to
them by the prosecution.
They argued that allowing the investigator to testify as such
would breach their clients’ right to fair hearing under Section 36
of the Constitution.
They also cited Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act 2015 to buttress their argument.
But the prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, maintained that the
prosecution had complied with the requirement of Section 379.
Earlier, counsel for the second defendant, Lana, had also told
the court about an application by the third defendant, seeking the
return of the case to Ibadan.
He added that his own client had also written to the Chief Judge
of the Federal High Court, praying that the matter be transferred
to Ibadan for convenience.
Lana said for his client to effectively defend himself, he would
need to call no fewer than 65 party leaders in Ibadan as witnesses;
adding it would not be convenient to bring the 65 party leaders
from Ibadan to Lagos.
But Oyedepo said he had neither been served with the second
defendant’s application for transfer, nor had he received a copy of
the third defendant’s letter to the CJ.
Besides, he argued that the case, which was formerly in Ibadan,
was transferred to Lagos at the instance of the defendants,
particularly the first defendant.
In a short ruling, Justice Hassan said he was satisfied that the
prosecution had complied with Section 379 of the ACJA, and that the
investigator, Zakari, was competent to testify.
As to the prayer to transfer the case to Ibadan, the judge said
he had yet to receive the second defendant’s application, adding
that the 3rd defendant’s letter could only be determined by the
CJ.
He directed the witness to proceed into the witness box. But
shortly after being sworn to an oath and making preliminary
introduction, Zakari was cut short in his testimony by the defence
counsel, who objected to his line of testimony.
Explaining how the EFCC came about the case, Zakari had begun by
saying, “I know the defendants. Sometime early 2015, the commission
received an intelligence, a top classified Category A intelligence,
that sometime late 2014 — that should be in December — there was a
meeting at the resident of the then Petroleum Minister…”
But he was interrupted by Lana, who argued that, that fact was
not in the proof of evidence supplied by the EFCC. The other
defence counsel aligned themselves with him.
After long arguments, the judge said he would adjourn the case
till Friday for the prosecutor to serve the defence with all
necessary documents.
The Federal High Court in Lagos has further adjourned till
Friday the trial of a former Minister of the Federal Capital
Territory, Jumoke Akinjide, who was charged with an alleged fraud
of N650m.
Justice Muslim Hassan adjourned the case on Thursday with a
directive that the prosecution should avail the defence of all the
necessary documents.
The judge’s directive followed complaints by the defence counsel
that they had yet to be served with certain documents, including
report of investigation, which the prosecution intended to rely
upon in the case.
Akinjide, alongside two others, is facing 24 charges bordering
on conspiracy and money laundering.
The other defendants are Senator Ayo Adeseun and Chief
Olanrewaju Otiti.
The trio were arraigned on January 16, 2018 by the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission, which accused them of collecting N650m
from a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani
Alison-Madueke, in the build-up to the 2015 general elections.
The EFCC claimed that they ought to have “reasonably known that
the money formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act,” adding that
they handled it without going through a financial institution in
violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
But they pleaded not guilty.
The judge had adjourned till Thursday for continuation of trial,
after the plea bargain proposal by the defendants fell through.
At the resumed proceedings on Thursday, however, the defence
counsel, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Michael Lana and Oladeji
Akinola, raised objections to the competence of an investigative
officer with the EFCC, Usman Zakari, to testify as a witness in the
case.
The defence counsel contended that Zakari’s statement was not
front-loaded as part of the proof of evidence made available to
them by the prosecution.
They argued that allowing the investigator to testify as such
would breach their clients’ right to fair hearing under Section 36
of the Constitution.
They also cited Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act 2015 to buttress their argument.
But the prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, maintained that the
prosecution had complied with the requirement of Section 379.
Earlier, counsel for the second defendant, Lana, had also told
the court about an application by the third defendant, seeking the
return of the case to Ibadan.
He added that his own client had also written to the Chief Judge
of the Federal High Court, praying that the matter be transferred
to Ibadan for convenience.
Lana said for his client to effectively defend himself, he would
need to call no fewer than 65 party leaders in Ibadan as witnesses;
adding it would not be convenient to bring the 65 party leaders
from Ibadan to Lagos.
But Oyedepo said he had neither been served with the second
defendant’s application for transfer, nor had he received a copy of
the third defendant’s letter to the CJ.
Besides, he argued that the case, which was formerly in Ibadan,
was transferred to Lagos at the instance of the defendants,
particularly the first defendant.
In a short ruling, Justice Hassan said he was satisfied that the
prosecution had complied with Section 379 of the ACJA, and that the
investigator, Zakari, was competent to testify.
As to the prayer to transfer the case to Ibadan, the judge said
he had yet to receive the second defendant’s application, adding
that the 3rd defendant’s letter could only be determined by the
CJ.
He directed the witness to proceed into the witness box. But
shortly after being sworn to an oath and making preliminary
introduction, Zakari was cut short in his testimony by the defence
counsel, who objected to his line of testimony.
Explaining how the EFCC came about the case, Zakari had begun by
saying, “I know the defendants. Sometime early 2015, the commission
received an intelligence, a top classified Category A intelligence,
that sometime late 2014 — that should be in December — there was a
meeting at the resident of the then Petroleum Minister…”
But he was interrupted by Lana, who argued that, that fact was
not in the proof of evidence supplied by the EFCC. The other
defence counsel aligned themselves with him.
After long arguments, the judge said he would adjourn the case
till Friday for the prosecutor to serve the defence with all
necessary documents.