The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed June 15 for ruling on whether an EFCC witness’ statement sought to be tendered in the ongoing trial of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi is admissible in line with the Evidence Act or not.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after counsel for the EFCC, Kayode Enitan, SAN, and lawyer to the ex-governor, Adebayo Adedeji, SAN, made their submissions on the propriety of the application.
The development occured when Enitan had sought to tender the statement made by the 14th prosecution witness (PW-14), Shehu Bello, in continuation of the evidence-in-chief.
Earlier, when the matter was called, the EFCC’s lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro SAN, told the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of the examination-in-chief of PW-14.
He said he would allow his colleague, Enitan, to lead the witness in evidence.
While being led in evidence, the witness told the court his involvement in the property located at Plot 1891, Dalla Hills, Maitama in Abuja.
“My friend, Ali Bello, approached me if I know any good construction company that can build a house for him.
“So I recommended a company, Metro Deck Construction Company limited. I brought them and he gave them the job to build the house for him.”
Asked on how the company was paid, the witness said that Ali Bello made transfers to them, and on some occasions, he paid them in cash.
When he was asked the currency in which the money was paid in cash, the witness said it was in naira.
The PW-14 also told the court that he knew the property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja.
He explained what he knew about the property.
“My friend, Ali Bello, asked me if I could get him a property around Wuse II, where he can build shops.
“After we spoke, I went out and got some people and spoke with some colleagues of mine.
“We got a plot of land in that location, Durban street, Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja,” he said.
He said the property was purchased from SFC Foods Limited.
When Enitan Asked him whether he could remember when he made a statement in the EFCC, the witness responded in affirmative.
He also confirmed his statement when he was asked to do so.
‘It’s my statement, it carries my signatures on all pages,” he said.
But when Enitan sought to tender the statement in evidence, Adedeji raised an objection.
Adedeji argued that the statement was inadmissible for a purpose the prosecution sought to tender the extra-judicial statement.
“Before I give my reasons as to why it is inadmissible at this stage, the same having been sought to be tendered by the prosecution, it is important for us to put it in context.
“Why do I say so, I’m referring my lord to the proceedings of yesterday.
“My lord, we submit with respect of the statement sought to be tendered this morning by the prosecution as though it constitute substantive evidence in support of the prosecution’s case is a misconception of the law and inadmissible at this stage.
“We submit that the same extra-judicial statement, my lord, is for the use of the defence under Section 223, 224, 225, 230, 232, 237 and 38 of the Evidence Act.”
According to him, my lord this category of statement is generally inadmissible except for the narrow purposes for the defence to impeach the credibility of the witness.
“My lord, this position was not made by me but by the Supreme Court in 1989,” he said.
Adedeji argued that what was sought to be tendered by the prosecution was not a confessional statement, hence, it was inadmissible against the defendant.
“So my lord, the situation is diffrent from what your lordship ruled on earlier that the prosecution could refresh the memory of the witness,” he said.
Responding, Enitan disagreed with Adedeji.
He said the submission of the defence was an extreme exercise of confidence in the absence of cogent legal authorities in the missapplication of the law and case law cited.
After taking their arguments, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until June 15 and June 18 for ruling and continuation of trial.
It would be recalled that on Wednesday, the PW-13, Baba Bappa, told the court that he did not transact any property business with the ex-governor.
Bappa told Justice Nwite while being cross examined by the lead counsel for the defence, Joseph Daudu, SAN.
The witness, who said he is an estate surveyor and facility manager, admitted that he only knew the former governor as a public figure, not in relation to the property transaction before the court.
