Oronsaye: Prosecution, defense counsels disagree on admissible documents

ITRealms:

The resumed hearing of the on-going trial of Nigeria’s former Head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye before Justice Olasumbo Goodluck of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, Wednesday, witnessed another setback as counsels to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defendant had a heated argument over the admissibility of documents presented by the Commission, reports ITRealms.

Leading a witness, Bello Hammadhama in evidence, Prosecution Counsel, I.O. Uket had tendered four statements allegedly made by the accused while in EFCC custody, urging the Court to admit them in evidence.

Relying on section 52 of the Evidence Act, he argued that the leader of the EFCC investigating team, who had earlier appeared in Court as Prosecution Witness (1) administered the word of caution on the defendant before extracting the statements from him.

“It is in evidence that the statements sought to be tendered were made by the defendant himself. The four statements were made on: 25/8/2015; 27/8/2015; 3/9/2015 and 29/2/2016. The defendant signed these statements as the maker, while PW 1 signed clearly as a witness. ”

Objecting to the admissibility of the documents, leader of the defence team, A.I. Ola (SAN) urged the Court to reject the document, adding that Prosecution Witness (6) was not the proper person to present same to the Court. He cited section 83, sub-sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Evidence Act, among other authorities, in support of his argument. 

“The defendant is prejudiced. PW 6 cannot be giving witness for PW 1. The Statement was recorded by the PW 1. She has been before this Court to testify. The opportunity was there for her to tender the documents. The defence counsel did not cross-examine her on this document because it was not tendered. Now, the prosecution is trying to present it through the back door. Prosecution deliberately denied us the opportunity of cross-examining the PW 1. I urge your lordship to reject the document.”

In her ruling, the presiding Judge, O.O. Goodluck held that: “the documents sought to be tendered are statements of the defendant while in custody. This Court has exhaustively looked at the arguments from both the defence and prosecution counsels and is of the opinion that the documents could be admitted. However, caution must be applied in attaching value to its contents.”

The case was adjourned to 29^th September, 2016 for continuation of hearing and cross-examination of the PW 6 by the defence Counsel.

Destiny Ugorji/GEE

 

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Oronsaye et al: EFCC once again contradicts self

ITRealms:

The second prosecution witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission-EFCC, Mustapha Sani Gadanya, in the on-going trial of Nigeria’s former Head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye, Tuesday, followed the tread of the first witness, Ibrahim Rouqayya (Mrs), by contradicting himself while giving evidence before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole.

Gadanya is a former ‘second in command’ of EFCC’s Pension Fraud Team and present Manager, Compliance Investigations in Standard Chartered Bank, Lagos. He was brought by the Commission as witness in the trial-within-trial, as ordered by the Court.

Led in evidence by prosecution Counsel, Mr. Afolabi, Gadanya explained his involvement in the investigation of the second defendant in the matter, arguing that he voluntarily gave his statement to the Commission.

However, during cross examination by the counsel to the second defendant, Mr. Oluwole Aladoyele, Gadanya contradicted himself, having earlier denied taking the statement of one Mrs. Phyna in 2011, only to admit when the defence Counsel provided documents to the contrary.

Defence counsel had asked the PW2: “do you recall obtaining the statement of one Mrs. Phina Chidi in this case?”

In his response, he quickly denied. “I never obtained any such statement.”

Insisting, defence Counsel stressed: “on the 11th of February, 2011, you personally took Mrs. Phina Chidi to your superior officer to endorse her statement as having made same voluntarily. My lord, the statement on page 118 of the proof of evidence before this Court, could be used in testing the credibility of this witness. It has his endorsement as investigating officer. The same also is on page 176 of the proof of evidence.”

Upon seeing the evidence of his involvement, the EFCC witness recanted and acknowledged that he signed the statement as investigating officer.  

ITRealms recalled that Mrs. Phina Chidi was alleged to have been involved in moving huge sums of money from pension accounts using her under-aged children, but later turned to EFCC’s star witness during the Pension fraud trial.

Gadanya also denied seizing the international passport, mobile telephone and other gadgets of the 2nd defendant, Osarenkhoe Afe, a claim that was contradicted by the third prosecution witness.

Also testifying in Court Tuesday, third prosecution witness, Nurudeen Sulaiman, an EFCC detective acknowledged that he was part of the team that executed a search warrant on the residence of the second accused person.

“I knew the second accused, Osarenkhoe Afe, during the investigation of the pension fraud. We executed a search warrant in his house and we saw a Laptop, a brown envelope with documents of the office of the Head of Service, an I-Pad, a Zenith Bank Cheque book, letter head papers belonging to his company, Fredrick Hamilton Global Services Limited (3rd accused) and some other items.”

The matter was tentatively adjourned to the 7th of July, 2016, with six more dates taken for continuation of hearing in the new legal year, before the Christmas break.

It would be recalled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission dragged Nigeria’s former head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye and four others before Justice Gabriel Kolawole of a Federal High Court, Abuja over an amended 35-count charge bordering on alleged corruption.

Others charged by the Commission are: Cluster Logistics Limited, Kangolo Dynamic Cleaning Limited, and Drew Investment & Construction Company Limited.

Recall that many Nigerians have accused the EFCC of witch-hunting the former head of Service, Stephen Oronsaye over his Committee’s recommendation for the merger of the EFCC with the Independent Corrupt practices Commission, ICPC, as well as his strong support for autonomy for the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit-NFIU.

Reports say the highest foreign donor support to the EFCC comes because of the NFIU.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

EFCC v. Oronsaye: Judge stops witness over chart explanation

ITRealms:

The presiding Judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole at the Federal High Court, Abuja, has stopped witness from using chart to offer explanation at the ongoing case between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) versus Nigeria’s former Head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye, Osarenkhoe Afe, and three others, reports ITRealms.

Ruling in favour of the defence team against an attempt by the Commission’s first prosecution witness (Pw1), Rouqayya Ibrahim to use a chart to give her evidence, the judge said, the witness, an operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, who came as the Commission’s first Prosecution Witness on the request to use a Chart in the Court to explain the findings of the EFCC in the course of investigation of the alleged fraud in Pension payments in Nigeria.

Opposing the request, lead Counsel to Mr. Stephen Oronsaye, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), argued that the chart, as displayed, having photographs of the accused persons will not allow for fair trial.

“The chart, having photographs of the accused persons will be prejudicial and will not allow for fair trial. When I saw the chart, I thought it was a document earlier frontloaded to us, but we just noticed that we received it here in Court. If it is a document they intend to use, they should serve it on us properly,” he said.

Adding his voice, Counsel to the second and third defendants, Mr. Oluwole Aladoyele described the practise as strange to his team, arguing that it does not conform to the provisions of the Evidence Act, relying on Section 239 of the Act.

He urged the Court to disallow what he described as a strange procedure, further describing the information on the chart as the personal opinion of the prosecution witness.

Canvassing in favour of the use of the Chart, Prosecution Counsel, Mr. Adebisi Adeniye argued that the opposition to the Chart was misconceived.

“I submit that the opposition to the usage of the chat is misconceived. It is not a situation where we hope to tender the document in evidence. What the witness has said is that she has a chat with which she can demonstrate the investigation she carried out and her findings. Even under the evidence Act, this witness can refresh her memory.”

In his ruling, the presiding Judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole upheld the arguments of the two defence counsels, disallowing the use of the demonstration chart.

‘‘If the chart will not be tendered as an exhibit, of what use is it? If I merely have to listen to the PW1’s explanations, of what use is it when the judgement will be written? If the use of the chart is merely to demonstrate how the fraud was perpetrated and not tendered as an exhibit, it will not be useful in judgement. I agree with the view of the counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants that the chart will be prejudicial. PW1 has not shown any sign of one with loss of memory. She appears to be clever and clearheaded. It is also important that the defendants are accorded fair hearing and fair trial. It is either the Chart is tendered as an exhibit or is out rightly discarded. My decision is to disallow this, which the PW1 introduced by herself without guidance by the prosecution Counsel. The Chart is disallowed from being demonstrated to the Court.”

Similarly, an attempt made by the same prosecution Counsel to pray the Court to accept a Statement made by the second defendant as an exhibit was also blocked by the defence Counsel, who argued that the said statement made in the office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was written under duress. He made a case for a ‘trial-within- trial’, a prayer that was granted by the presiding Judge.

‘‘I object to the admissibility of this document. It was made through oppression, using the exact words of the Evidence Act. I am particular about the statements made on the 24th of February, 2011 and 16th of March, 2011. They were made through oppression, as he was threatened, induced and harassed to make the statements and we intend to demonstrate this if my lord graciously orders trial within trial to demonstrate to you that these documents are inadmissible. He was bundled,‘‘ he stressed.

Delivering his ruling on the admissibility of the document, presiding Judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole said ‘‘In view of the objection raised by the second and third defence Counsel, and relying on sections 28 and 29 o*f the Evidence Act, we will take a mini procedure, a trial within trial."

The matter was adjourned to 21st of June, 2016 for the ordered mini procedure.

It would be recalled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission dragged Nigeria’s former head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye and four others before Justice Gabriel Kolawole of a Federal High Court, Abuja over an amended 35-count charge bordering on alleged corruption.

Others charged by the Commission are: Cluster Logistics Limited, Kangolo Dynamic Cleaning Limited, and Drew Investment & Construction Company Limited. Osarenkhoe Afe is the managing director of Fredrick Hamilton Global Services Limited.

Meanwhile, many well-meaning Nigerians have cautioned the Federal Government over what they described as the persecution of Nigeria’s former Head of Service by the EFCC, further describing it as a show of ingratitude to one who introduced reforms to the country’s Civil Service and exposed corruption in the system.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!