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 29th September, 2016 for
continuation of hearing and cross-examination of the PW 6 by the defence
Counsel.
Destiny Ugorji/GEE
ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!
