Justice Rilwan Aikawa of a Federal High court sitting in Lagos on Tuesday reserved ruling until March 23, 2017, on the objections raised by counsel to the former Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Kwara state, Mohammed Dele Belgore (SAN), on the admissibility of the list of beneficiaries of a sum to the tune of $115, 010,000 (One hundred and fifteen million, and ten thousand dollars) from the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke.
It would be recalled that on Monday, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFFC), had notified Justice Aikawa that Alison-Madueke had questions to answer in the ongoing trial of Belgore, and the former Minister of National Planning, Professor Abubakar Sulaiman, over their involvement in scam to the tune of N450 million.
Belgore’s counsel, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) had during proceedings insisted before the judge that the list sought to be tendered emanated from the mail box of the maker.
He called the attention of Justice Aikawa to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which according to the SAN, governs documents made from computers.
“The document sought to be tendered has not met with the conditions made out in Section 84 of the Evidence Act.”
“The document shows that the list was made from a public mail box named nnamdi@yahoo.com.”
“The certificate itself was not made by the witness and that makes it more ‘yahoo yahoo’ and I urge your lordship to reject same,” Shofunde argued.
In his objection, counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo argued that there is a certificate attached to the document sought to be tendered to authenticate the said document.
Oyedepo further confirmed to Justice Aikawa that the certificate came from the financial institution (name withheld), and signed by one Boye Ogunmolade who is the Chief Compliance Officer of the financial institution.
“The document was identified by the witness as the list containing names of beneficiaries, and the transactions carried out by the financial institution.”
“It is not in the spirit of Section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act, that a certifying officer who is merely to confirm the functionality or otherwise of the devices used in printing out the document so as to come and give evidence.”
“Substantially, we have complied with provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.”
“The certifying officer had confirmed that the document was printed in the ordinary course of business of the financial institution.”
“He also certified that the list was produced by the computer owned by the financial institution. Throughout the period the document was printed, the computer used in printing the document was functioning properly.”
“There is no contrary evidence to controvert this certification. The witness can validly tender the document he has identified forms part of the transactions.”
“It is an exception that a document must be tendered by its maker where the document emanates,” Oyedepo argued.
Earlier, while being led in evidence by Oyedepo, a witness, Timothy Olaobaju, insisted that the sum was offloaded to the loading bay for the beneficiaries to take possession.
“The money was counted by way of bundle counting, and they were in N1000 and N500 denominations. The money was kept overnight with the financial institution in the vaults.
That very day, before the beneficiaries came, we had already stacked the money for them to pick.
But there was a delay because the minister refused to show his identity card.
The beneficiaries said they could not carry the money that night because it was late.
It is not true that none of the beneficiaries collected a dime,” Olagunju insisted.
Belgore and Sulaiman were re-arraigned on an amended five counts, wherein the name of the former Petroleum Minister was clearly mentioned.
According to the amended charge, on or about March 27, 2015, Alison-Madueke was accused of conspiring with Belgore and Sulaiman to directly take possession of the sum of N450 million, which they reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of unlawful act.
They were equally said to have taken the said funds in cash, which exceeded the amount authorized by law, without going through any financial institution.
Belgore and the former Minister of National Planning were accused of paying a sum to the tune of N50 million to one Sheriff Shagaya, without going through financial institutions.
The Commission however insisted that the offences contravenes sections 18 (a) 15 (2) (d), 1 (a), 16 (d) and punishable under sections 15 (3) and 4, 16 (2) (b), and 16 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.
and then