Yahaya Bello: Courtroom Offers Verdict On EFCC’s Request To ‘Cross-examine’ Personal Witness
The Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja has scheduled a ruling for June 26 relating to the {Economic} and {Financial} Crimes Fee’s (EFCC) request to cross-examine its personal witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, within the cash laundering case towards former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite set this date after listening to arguments from each the EFCC and Bello in regards to the legitimacy of the prosecution’s request to cross-examine its personal witness following the protection’s questioning by Joseph Daudu, SAN.
A disagreement emerged when Daudu strongly opposed the process of permitting the EFCC to cross-examine the witness after the protection had already executed so.
He knowledgeable Justice Nwite that the EFCC’s solely lawful recourse was to re-examine the witness, as mandated by authorized requirements, moderately than cross-examine him.
Daudu particularly contended that for the EFCC to legitimately cross-examine the witness, it should first declare him hostile.
When the session resumed for additional cross-examination, the protection counsel inquired whether or not Ojehomon had beforehand testified in different courts relating to the college charges paid by the Bello household to the American Worldwide School in Abuja, to which he affirmed.
Nevertheless, the witness, who serves as an inner auditor on the American Worldwide School, said that he couldn’t specify the precise courts concerned.
He acknowledged offering testimony in a associated case involving Ali Bello, however clarified that he had not made any adverse statements relating to former Governor Yahaya Bello, simply as he had shunned making any hostile feedback within the present case.
Following the conclusion of Daudu’s cross-examination of the witness, EFCC lawyer Olukayode Enitan, SAN, requested to cross-examine the identical witness regarding Exhibit 19, which is a judgment doc from the Excessive Courtroom of the Federal Capital Territory.
He knowledgeable the courtroom that he was not conducting a re-examination of the EFCC’s witness, however moderately a cross-examination, because the doc had been admitted into proof from the bar throughout the protection’s cross-examination.
“I’m not re-examining him, I’m cross-examining him as a result of they introduced this doc,” he stated.
The defendant’s lawyer, nonetheless, drew the courtroom’s consideration to the truth that the applying by the EFCC lawyer was not solely unknown however unusual to legislation, in keeping with the Proof Act.
“If you wish to cross-examine your personal witness, you need to first declare him a hostile witness. You can’t cross look at him based mostly on the doc,” Daudu argued.
Nevertheless, Enitan added that he had the fitting to attract the eye of the courtroom to some particular paragraphs within the doc.
At this level, the choose requested: “Do you may have any provision of the legislation to assist this?
“I’ll draw your Lordship’s consideration to Part 36 of the Structure. They sought to tender this doc, we objected and the courtroom granted their prayer. Honest listening to calls for that the complainant too has the fitting to look at this as a result of Part 36 of the Structure talks of truthful listening to,” Pinheiro responded.
Daudu in response stated, “We’re not saying that they can’t re-examine the witness. That’s what Part 36 underneath the legislation says about truthful listening to. However whether it is to cross-examine him, he should present us the legislation that backs that.
“He can not come underneath the guise of truthful listening to to wish to cross-examine the witness.”
On the conclusion of the arguments, the choose declined to allow the EFCC lawyer to cross-examine the witness.
Based on the established process, the witness offers proof in chief, adopted by cross-examination by the defendant, after which re-examination by the prosecution.
“With all due respect, I recommend that in case you are so decided to proceed on this method, it might be extra acceptable so that you can handle me instantly on this matter, and I’ll decide,” he remarked.
After contemplating the arguments for and towards the request, Justice Nwite scheduled June 26, 27, and July 4 and 5 for a ruling and the continuation of the trial.
The EFCC witness said on Thursday that there had been no wired switch of charges from the Kogi State authorities or any native governments within the state to the account of the American Worldwide School, Abuja.
He additionally referenced a portion of a previous judgment from the Federal Capital Territory Excessive Courtroom, which indicated that there was no courtroom order requiring the college to return charges to the EFCC or any ruling that labeled the funds as proceeds of cash laundering.
