The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday, fixed June 15 for ruling on whether the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC’s) witness statement sought to be tendered in the ongoing trial of former Governor of Kogi state, Yahaya Bello is admissible in line with the Evidence Act or not.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after counsel to the EFCC, Kayode Enitan, SAN, and lawyer to the ex-governor, Adebayo Adedeji, SAN, made their submissions on the propriety of the application.
The development occured when Enitan had sought to tender the statement made by the 14th prosecution witness (PW14), Shehu Bello, in continuation of the evidence-in-chief.
Earlier, when the matter was called, the EFCC’s lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro SAN, told the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of the examination-in-chief of PW14 and told the that, he would allow his colleague, Enitan, to lead the witness in evidence.
While being led in evidence, the witness told the court of his involvement in the property located at Plot 1891, Dalla Hills, Maitama in Abuja.
“My friend, Ali Bello, approached me if I know any good construction company that can build a house for him. So I recommended a company, Metro Deck Construction Company limited. I brought them and he gave them the job to build the house for him.”
Asked on how the company was paid, the witness said, Ali Bello made transfers to them, and on some occasions, he paid them in cash in naira.
The PW14 also told the court that he knew the property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja.
“My friend, Ali Bello, asked me if I could get him a property around Wuse II, where he can build shops.
“After we spoke, I went out and spoke with some colleagues of mine. We got a plot of land in that location, Durban street, Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja,” he said adding that the property was purchased from SFC Foods Limited.
When Enitan Asked him whether he could remember when he made a statement in the EFCC, the witness responded in affirmative, but when Enitan sought to tender the statement in evidence, Adedeji raised an objection.
Adedeji argued that the statement was inadmissible for a purpose the prosecution sought to tender the extra-judicial statement.
“My lord, we submit with respect of the statement sought to be tendered this morning by the prosecution as though it constitute substantive evidence in support of the prosecution’s case is a misconception of the law and inadmissible at this stage.
“We submit that the same extra-judicial statement, my lord, is for the use of the defence under Section 223, 224, 225, 230, 232, 237 and 38 of the Evidence Act.”
According to him, my lord this category of statement is generally inadmissible except for the narrow purposes for the defence to impeach the credibility of the witness.
“My lord, this position was not made by me but by the Supreme Court in 1989,” he said, arguing that what was sought to be tendered by the prosecution was not a confessional statement, hence, it was inadmissible against the defendant.
“So my lord, the situation is diffrent from what your lordship ruled on earlier that the prosecution could refresh the memory of the witness,” he said.
Responding, Enitan disagreed with Adedeji and said, the submission of the defence was an extreme exercise of confidence in the absence of cogent legal authorities in the missapplication of the law and case law cited.
After taking their arguments, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till June 15 and June 18 for ruling and continuation of trial.
Comments