The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday, adjourned till May 8 for ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in suit number, FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr Ali Bello and the Incorporated Trustees of American International School, Abuja.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, representing former Kogi state governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who is standing trial on alleged money laundering had, before proceeding on cross-examination of the third witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nicholas Ohehomon, an Auditor with the American International School, Abuja (AISA), sought to tender the document, which had decided on the issue of payment of school fees or refund in the ongoing case filed by EFCC against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State.
The Defence Counsel had also sought to tender the receipts of the recertification of the said judgement of the Abuja High Court.
However, the EFCC lead counsel, Kemi Pinherio, SAN, who had earlier led the witness in evidence, objected to the tendering of the document on the ground that, the Prosecution had not yet closed its case.
He argued that the defendant could not tender documents at a time when the prosecution was still proving its case.
Citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act, Pinheiro said the only kind of documents that can be sought to be tendered during cross-examination are previous statements in writing of a witness for the purpose of contracting or challenging his current testimony.
Reacting, Daudu said, “My lord, the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly and exclusively by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand. Once it is adjudged, we submit that the document is relevant, it becomes automatically admissible. That is what is contained in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“The question for your lordship is, is this document relevant and admissible in line with the provision of the Evidence Act. The answer has been provided by my learned brother Silk for the prosecution when he referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which says that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment.”
He said the public documents they sought to tender had AISA as a party and that, as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness was the sole witness of AISA in the matter and added that, the objection of the prosecution was speculative because “he does not know what we want to do with the record yet.
“Because he (Pinhero, SAN) is not comfortable with the document does not stop its admissibility,” he added.
Pinherio, however, urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the Defence Counsel had not demonstrated that it comes within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
After listening to submissions of counsel on the admissibility or otherwise of the FCT High Court judgment, the trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the case till May 8 and 9, for ruling on the admissibility of the document and for continuation of trial.
Earlier, in the trial, the witness identified some exhibits, comprising of telex on funds transfers from Forza Oil and Gas, Whales Oil an Gas, Aleshua Solution Services, Unnati General Trading LLC, Dada Grant Ltd of Kampala and Nansi Issa of Uganda to AISA in favour of the respective children.
The witness however told the court that the name of Yahaya Bello is not indicated as a sender in any of the fund transfers to AISA.
During examination, EFCC’s Counsel asked the witness to tell the court in whose names four of the payment receipts were issued and the witness said, the receipts were issued in the names of four children of the former governor, after being prompted by the Prosecution Counsel.
The Defence Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, cut in, saying that the witness should read the names on the receipt.
“My lord, he (Pinhero, SAN) is demonstrating this document. The witness cannot import or infer into the Exhibit what is not there,” he stated.
Meanwhile, the Defence Counsel could not proceed with his cross-examination because the Judge had to adjourn for ruling on the admissibility of a judgment of the FCT High Court on the issue of payments of school fees.
and then