Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday rejected a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to ‘cross-examine’ its third witness in the money laundering case against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
While delivering his ruling, Justice Nwite noted that there was no provision in law that permits the court to allow the prosecution to re-examine its witness in the manner proposed by the anti-graft agency.
This was just as the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, during the proceedings, described the case instituted against the former governor as ‘political’.
He emphasised that he was not prosecuting a bank official, but a political figure, “one who had even aspired to contest for Presidency”;.
He said this while arguments were being raised on whether the defence counsel would cross-examine the 4th witness when the prosecution concludes its examination or wait till the next day.
Responding, the judge said, “Political? If that is the case, then those handling political cases should prepare to take over the matter.”;
On the ruling against the cross-examination of PW3 by the EFCC, the judge said, “I must agree with the learned counsel to the defendant that the EFCC can only cross-examine its own witness after it has declared such witness a hostile witness.
“The argument of the learned counsel to the prosecution is misconceived. This honourable court is not shutting the prosecution from re-examining the witness, but must restrict itself to pages 1, 14 and 15 of Exhibit 19 where issues were addressed by the defense.
“The prosecution is not allowed to re-examine the witness outside the pages prescribed.”;
Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, had, at the last hearing, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local government councils in the state to the account of the institution.
On cross-examination, he also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment that said there was no court order for AISA to return fees to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
After a brief re-examination, and the withdrawal of an earlier question posed to the witness, the EFCC lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, told the court that the Commission had three other witnesses for the day.
During examination, Mshelia Arhyel Bata, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank, confirmed that certificates of identification were attached to the statements of accounts provided by the bank in the seven sets of documents presented, as requested in a subpoena.
The court, thereafter, admitted the statements of account of Kogi State Government House Administration, and six others, as exhibits.
The witness, on subpoena, narrated to the court, the withdrawal limits allowed for individuals, corporate organisations and government, saying that before the cashless policy, it was pegged at N10 million for government and N500, 000 for individuals.
The prosecution then took the witness to the 23rd of May, 2016 on the printed documents, and pointed at a transaction under the name, Abdulsalami Hudu.
When the witness was asked to explain the transaction, he said, “It is a cash withdrawal of N10 million in accordance with the then maximum threshold allowed for cheque withdrawal per transaction.”;
He, however, said he had nine cash transactions on the same date.
The witness was then told to go to the credit transactions of 30th January, 2018, and he confirmed that there were 10 separate credits of various sums, totalling about N1.092 billion.
When asked to mention the total amount of withdrawals, the defendant’s counsel cut in, saying, “He (Pinheiro, SAN) knows that they are for security votes.”;
The witness aggregated the total amount of withdrawals to N1.968 billion, saying they were on different dates.
He also read out the inflow and outflow between 2nd of May 2018 and 19th May, 2018.
After the examination by the prosecution, the judge adjourned to Friday, June 27, for cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel.
