Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the case until April 24 after taking arguments on the validity of the application from lawyer to the EFCC, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, and Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN,
The development followed an evidence in court that appeared not to have aligned with what Jamilu, the 12th prosecution witness (PW-12), had written in his initial statement to the commission.
It would be recalled that Jamilu’s statement made to EFCC was admitted in evidence in court and marked as Exhibit 46. The former governor’s lawyer had objected to the move by Pinheiro to represent Exhibit 46 to Jamilu following the witness’ contradictory response while given his evidence.
Daudu argued that to contradict its witness, the prosecution must first seek the leave of court to declare the witness hostile. The PW-12, who is the owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, had said that he converted certain funds deposited in his account by one Abba Adaudu to United States dollars and handed it over to the latter at various times, either in his office or at the recipient’s office in Abuja.
When the EFCC lawyer asked if Jamilu could recall delivering the funds at any other location other than the offices of both parties, the witnesd said he could only remember delivering the foreign currency at the offices.
It was at this point that the prosecution lawyer sought to show the witness his earlier statement (Exhibit 46) to the EFCC, but the defendant’s counsel objected.
“My Lord, I object. If learned counsel intends to contradict his witness, he must first apply to have him declared a hostile witness. The witness has clearly stated that the transactions took place only at his office and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel cannot rely on this document to contradict or augment the witness’ oral evidence without following due procedure,” Daudu argued.
Pinheiro then said that he only wanted to show the witness the document to refresh his memory, noting that the transactions occured in 2022. He referred the court to Section 239(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act (formerly Section 218), which permits a witness to refresh his memory, while also citing other authorities that supported his stand.
The defence counsel, however argued that the cases cited by the prosecution lawyer were not relevant to his objection.
My contention is that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statement already tendered as exhibit. This amounts to contradiction without first seeking leave of court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act.
“I further rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu submitted.
Justice Nwite, then, adjourned the matter until April 24 for ruling on whether or not the prosecution could alter the witness’ evidence by representing Exhibit 46, and for continuation of trial.
Earlier, during his examination-in-chief, the PW-12 said he did not make any cash deposit at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank. He said the name; Abdullahi Jemilu or Jamilu Abdullahi might have been used as narration in the cash deposits, but maintained that he did not make the deposits.
On certain transactions of Oct 8, 2021; Oct. 11, 2021 and March 17, 2022, he said one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.
According to him, after receiving the funds from Abba Adaudu, he converted them to U.S dollars and handed them over to Abba Adaudu. The witness’ attention was drawn to Exhibit 37(1), statement of account of Kumfayakum Global Limited, specifically the transactions of Dec. 15 and Dec. 17, 2021.
He identified the nature of entries from Keyless Nature Limited as N100 million bank transfer on Dec. 15, 2021 and N400 million on Dec. 17, 2021. The witness also told the court that Keyless Nature Limited is owned by Abba Adaudu.
He was also told to confirm the transactions of Feb. 18, 2022, an inflow from Ejadams Essence Limited into his account, which he did.
