Ladipo Sanusi
Lawyers defending former Abia State governor, Dr Orji Uzor Kalu, left a Federal High Court in Lagos for the third time this week, today, with things not going their way.
Justice Mohammed Idris dismissed objection, raised by Kalu and two others, to the capability of a witness of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Mr. Onovie Oghenevo, to tender some documents in their trial over alleged N3.2billion fraud.
Kalu, alongside his former aide, Udeh Udeogu, and his company, Slok Nigeria Limited, are facing trial on an amended 34-count charge of alleged N3.2billion fraud.
The Judge had, yesterday, rejected objections raised by Kalu and other defendants to the witness giving evidence in their trial, on the ground that he was subpoenaed by the court.
Justice Idris dismissed the defendants’ objection while delivering ruling on the objection raised by their lawyers: Mike Ozekhome, Goody Kalu, Solo Akuma, and K. C. Nwojo, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs).
They had urged the Court not to admit the documents on the ground that they were not certified, and that the certified ones were done by the EFCC, which ought to have been done by the bank which Oghenevo represented.
But the EFCC through its prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, had urged the Court to discountenance the objection raised by the defendants, on the ground that the certification of the bank’s letter equally covered the attachments.
He urged the court to admit the letter and the attachment.
Justice Idris in his ruling said: “the letter is original and need no certification. So the letter dated October 17, 2006, is admissible.”
The judge cited Appeal Court decision on Orizu Vs Onyegbuna. He said: “It’s a settled law that a document with attachment has to be admitted with the attachment.
“The letter and its attachments have the same weight, in the circumstances, the letter and its attachments are admissible in evidence.”
Consequently, the letter and the documents were admitted as exhibit A and A1-38.
On today’s, the first prosecution witness, Mr. Oghenevo,
While being led in evidence by the prosecutor, Oghenevo informed the Court that all the instruments, which includes manager’s cheques and bank drafts used by the defendants were issued in Umuahia branch of the defunct Mammy Bank, Abia State, but presented at its Apapa, Lagos branch.
He also stated that 23 drafts paid to different people were drawn at Government House, Umuahia, in Abia State.
He told the Court that the cheques were issued on April 7, 2005, by Imaga Okoro, M. A. Udoh, Romanus Madu, and one James, at Government House, Umuahia.
While being cross-examined by Ozekhome, the witness informed the Court that none of defendants’ names were in the drafts or the cheques. He also told the Court that they were not the persons that issued instructions to the issuance of the drafts.
He said that a draft of N2.5 million paid in favour of Slok was issued for Orji Uzor Kalu Campaign Fund, and that the draft was not issued from the Government House, in Umuahia.
He also told the Court that he was not the one that approved the payment; neither did he supervise the approval.
The second witness called by the prosecution, Christiana Ohiri, a manager with United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Umuahia branch, told the Court that her bank was contacted by the EFCC, in between September and October 2006, requesting for some documents relating to some transactions done early in 2006.
She told the Court how she was invited by the EFCC in 2007 and asked questions relating to the documents sent by her bank to the agency.
She informed the Court that the Abia State Government House, Judiciary and Board of Internal Revenue, had accounts with her bank during the period.
The witness was however prevented from giving further evidence, following objection raised by Ozekhome, on the admissibility of the documents, which includes account statement, being tendered by the witness on the ground that they were not certified.
Ozekhome, in opposing the admissibility of the documents, said: “Certification is a legal requirement under the Evidence Act. Account Number 05335455001105, is an account that didn’t have UBA logo. This is just a piece of paper bearing some amount.
“The other two pages that have the bank’s logo do not have any certification. The one that has logo was not certified, and the ones that were certified didn’t have logo. This is contrary to Section 84(1) of Evidence Act.
“We therefore object to their admissibility.”
He also asked the court not to listen to the second prosecution witness, and to expunge all the evidence she had given in the case, on the ground that her name was listed in the Proof-of-Evidence.
In response, Jacobs urged the Court to admit the documents as well as allow the witness to give evidence in the matter. He said that objection raised by the defendants were unfounded and aimed at resuscitating the objection that was overruled by the Court.
The prosecutor informed the Court that though the name of the witness was not listed, her statement, which was used in the earlier trial of the defendants from High Court to Supreme Court, were in page 471-477 of the Proof-of-Evidence.
He added that the agency had been calling the witness since 2008 and used her evidence when the matter was fresh.
He urged the Court to admit the documents, as well as allow the witness to continue with her evidence.
Consequently, Justice Idris adjourned till tomorrow for ruling on both party’s submissions, as well as continuation of trial.
Here is a link to yesterday’s proceedings: http://www.newsmakersng.com/2017/03/07/n3-2bn-fraud-court-rejects-kalus-objection-to-efcc-witness/
0
I still can’t understand why some of these politicians are still being treated like sacred cows, as far as I am concerned, they are all thieves because they have all stolen at one point or the other.