Ramon Oladimeji
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has said it is prosecuting a former Governor of Oyo State, Rashidi Ladoja, based on a petition it received from the office of the Secretary to the State Government, Oyo State, in July 2007.
A policeman attached to the EFCC, Abdullahi Lawal, said this on Wednesday when he appeared as a prosecution witness before Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos, where Ladoja is being tried for an alleged fraud of N4.7bn.
But the Wednesday’s proceedings soon ran into a logjam as the defence counsel resisted the move by the EFCC to tender the said petition as an exhibit in evidence against Ladoja and his co-defendant, Waheed Akanbi.
Justice Idris consequently adjourned till Thursday (today) to rule on the admissibility of the petition.
The EFCC had first arraigned Ladoja and Akanbi in 2008 before Justice A. R. Mohammed.
But the defendants had objected to the charges against them and challenged the case over the course of seven years to the Supreme Court.
The case was, however, reopened in December, 2016 before Justice Idris after the apex court dismissed the appeal by the defendants.
The trial, which was scheduled to resume properly before Justice Idris on Wednesday was, however, botched on account of arguments and counter-arguments on the admissibility of the first document sought to be tendered by the prosecution.
Ladoja’s lawyer, Mr. Bolaji Onilenla, contended that the petition was not part of the proof of evidence served on the defence by the prosecution, saying admitting it would amount to the prosecution ambushing the defence.
He said the failure to frontload the petition was a violation of the provision of Section 79 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Onilenla contended that the petition was not part of the proof of evidence served on the defence by the prosecution.
The counsel stated, “With the greatest respect to the court, regrettably, we have to object to the admissibility of this document. My Lord, just as we did object to the competence of the gentleman to testify at the last hearing, the document they intend to tender has not been served on us contrary to the provision of Section 79 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
“We submit that this provision is mandatory and fundamental. We further submit that that provision is closely tied to Section 36 (c) of the 1999 Constitution, which is to the effect that an accused person must be afforded adequate time and facility to defend himself.”
He explained that it was on the same basis that the defence had, at the last hearing date, opposed the competence of Lawal to testify as a witness because his statement was not frontloaded, the objection which the court upheld and directed the prosecution to go back and do the needful.
Aligning himself with Onilenla’s argument, Akanbi’s lawyer, Mr. Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, said the prosecution’s failure to have frontloaded the petition against Ladoja as part of proof of evidence showed that the prosecution was not serious about the case.
“Your Lordship advised them at the last adjourned date to go and file everything they needed to but they didn’t do that.
“I fear that the prosecutor is quite experienced and I will go as far as saying that they knew we will object to this and it shows that they are not ready to prosecute the case,” Olumide-Fusika said.
Responding, however, the prosecutor, Mr. Festus Keyamo, insisted that the petition sought to be tendered had fulfilled all conditions required for its admissibility and urged the court to admit it.
“Strictly speaking, Section 39 (1) of the ACJA does not apply to the Federal High Court. It only applies to trial by way of information. This court has summary jurisdiction in respect of federal offences. There is no mandatory provision of the law, not anywhere, that we are required to give them every single document that we intend to use. We only need to give them a summary of what we intend to use at trial. Their objection does not go to admissibility at all,” Kayamo contended.
He added that non-service of the petition on the defence counsel should not stall the case because they could ask for an adjournment to cross-examine the witness if they were not ready.
Olumide-Fusika, however, rejected Keyamo’s proposition, saying it amounted to the prosecution insisting on going in the wrong direction despite the court’s advice that they needed to frontload all the documents.
Justice Idris adjourned till Thursday (today) to rule on whether or not to admit the petition as exhibit.
The charges against Ladoja and Akanbi border on money laundering and unlawful conversion of funds belonging to Oyo State to their own.
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: editor@punchng.com
from Punch Newspapers http://ift.tt/2mGOzxX
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment