JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
Former governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa State and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Tuesday, disagreed over the subpoenaed witness brought to court by the commission.
The development occurred before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja shortly after the trial resumed.
The EFCC is prosecuting Lamido for alleged money laundering in the wake of N1. 35 billion.
The former governor is being tried alongside his two sons – Aminu and Mustapha; Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies: Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.
The defendants, through their lawyer, Joe Agi, SAN, had requested that the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, or any other member of staff, be summoned to testify in their defence, after their no-case plea was rejected.
The accused had opted to abstain from the case after the prosecution closed the case by calling 17 witnesses.
Although the case was initially reassigned to Justice Peter Lifu by the Chief Justice following the Supreme Court ruling upholding the lower court ruling, the commission insisted that Justice Ojukwu, the previous lower court judge, conclude the matter.
The case was later reassigned to Justice Ojukwu.
On Tuesday, when the case was opened, Kayode Oyetunde, a staff member and investigator, was called by the anti-corruption agency’s lawyer, Chile Okoroma, SAN, to testify.
But Agi asked for a postponement to allow him to interface with the witness summoned to court.
Okoroma, however, opposed the postponement request.
The prosecution lawyer, however, prayed the court to stay the proceedings to allow the defense to evaluate the witness as all the documents produced by the subpoenaed witness had already been presented before the court as evidence.
The judge, therefore, refused to adjourn the matter and threatened to quash the subpoena if the adjournment request was granted.
He later suspended the case for an hour to allow the defense to interface with the subpoenaed witness.
After the proceedings resumed, the witness was called to the stand.
The witness admitted in court that he was not part of the investigative team and had only been tasked with searching for the documents requested in the subpoena.
The defense lawyer, therefore, declared that he could not proceed with the case since the witness knew nothing about the matter.
The Agi said the witness cannot testify if he knows nothing about the case and urged the EFCC Chairman to make available a witness relevant to the case.
However, Okoroma did not agree with Agi’s presentation.
He said all documents sought in the subpoena had been made available and that the EFCC is a corporate entity and anyone could represent it.
He argued that a subpoena is not sacrosanct and that the court should not heed defense complaints.
Responding to a reference made by Agi to one of the female prosecutors who had testified in court, Justice Ojukwu advised him to make an application for the witness to be recalled.
He said that only when a witness refused to come to court could he be subpoenaed.
After Justice Ojukwu admitted into evidence all the documents requested in the subpoena, he adjourned the matter to June 4 for continuation of the trial.
