The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 26 for ruling in the application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to “cross-examine”; its own witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, in the alleged money laundering case instituted against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after listening to arguments by EFCC and Yahaya Bello on the appropriateness or otherwise of the prosecution to cross examine its own witness after the cross examination by Bello’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Daudu, SAN.
Disagreement arose when Daudu vehemently objected the procedural mode of cross examining the witness after cross examination by the defense.
Daudu told Justice Emeka Nwite that the only option open to EFCC was to re-examine the witness as required by law and not to cross examine the witness.
Specifically, the senior lawyer argued that for EFCC to lawfully cross examine the witness, the agency must first declare such witness hostile.
When the matter was called for continuation of cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja, and he said yes.
But the witness, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not mention the exact courts.
He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative against him in the instant charge.
After Daudu concluded the cross-examination of the witness, EFCC lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the same witness on Exhibit 19, a judgment copy of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence from the bar during cross examination by the defense.
“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,”; he said.
The defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the application by the EFCC lawyer was not only unknown but strange to law, in line with the Evidence Act.
“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,”; Daudu argued.
However, Enitan added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.
At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?
“I will draw your Lordship’s attention to Section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing,”; Pinheiro responded.
Daudu in response said, “We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that.
“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness.”;
The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow the cross-examination of the witness by the EFCC lawyer.
“Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in-chief and the defendant cross examines, then the prosecution re-examines.
“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this and I will take a position,”; he stated.
After taking arguments for and against the request, Justice Nwite fixed June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.
The EFCC witness had on Thursday said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State government or any of the local governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja.
He also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment that said there was no court order for the school to return fees to the EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
