The list of beneficiaries of the $115,010,000 from the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, was on Thursday admitted as evidence before a Federal High Court in Lagos.
The matter had been adjourned for the presiding Judge, Justice Rilwan Aikawa to rule on the objection raised by O. Ayanlaja (SAN), counsel to the former Minister of National Planning, Professor Abubakar Sulaiman, who is being tried alongside the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Kwara state, Mohammed Dele Belgore (SAN), concerning the admissibility of the list of beneficiaries.
In his ruling, the judge agreed with the arguments of counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Rotimi Oyedepo, and held that the prosecution has complied substantially with the provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act.
Justice Aikawa added that the fact that the document was produced by a computer through an email address of a staff in the course of carrying out an official assignment does not in any way invalidate the tendering of the list of beneficiaries before the court.
“What the Evidence Act intends to do is to simplify and not to complicate the process of admitting documents in court.”
“Any officer of the financial institution is competent to tender the document even if he is not the maker of the said document.”
“The document and its attachment are one and same is admissible and can be tendered by the PW1,” the Judge ruled.
Earlier in the proceedings, Belgore’s counsel, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) commenced the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, Timothy Olaobaju, who confirmed before the court that he volunteered a statement to the EFCC on January 9, 2017 where the witness stated that he did not mention Alison-Madueke in his statement to the anti-graft agency.
But as Olaobaju was about to give further explanations as to why Alison-Madueke’s name was not mentioned in his statement, the defence lawyers promptly interjected and insisted that the further explanation was not needed.
Justice Aikawa was then urged by Shofunde to adjourn the matter so as to enable the prosecution produce the said statement made by the witness.
Consequently, the judge adjourned until May 2, 2017 for the EFCC to make available the said statement.
It would be recalled that the 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 the alleged fraud of N450 million.
Timothy Olaobaju, an EFCC witness had 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 and 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, as the order came from our MD based on a memo received from Alison-Madueke,” he said.
Belgore and Sulaiman were re-arraigned on an amended five counts, where the name of the former Petroleum Minister was 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.