The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for ruling on the admissibility of a judgment of the FCT High Court sought to be tendered by former Gov. Yahaya Bello in defence of his case in the alleged money laundering trial.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter on Friday after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s lawyer, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, opposed the move by Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, to tender the document in evidence before cross examining the next witness.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the document, a judgment in suit number: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School Abuja, had decided on issues about the school fees payment or refund in the institution.
However, shortly after Pinhero concluded his evidence-in-chief with the 3rd prosecution witness (PW-3), Nicholas Ohehomon, the American International School Abuja (AISA)’s Auditor, Daudu sought to tender the judgment before proceeding on cross-examination.
The senior lawyer also sought to tender the receipts of the recertification of the said document.
But Pinherio, who had earlier examined the witness, objected, saying that the prosecution had not yet closed its case.
He argued that the defendant could not tender documents at a time the prosecution was still proving its case, citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
Reacting, Daudu disagreed with the anti-graft agency’s lawyer.
“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,” he said.
The defence lawyer said that the question for the court was whether the document is relevant and admissible in line with Section 4.
“The answer has been provided by my learned brother silk for the prosecution.
“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.
Daudu argued that the judgment he sought to tender had AISA as a party and that, as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness (PW-3) was the sole witness of AISA in the matter.
According to him, the objection of the prosecution is speculative because he (Pinhero) 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.
He said though neither Pinhero nor himself would be the final arbiter on the issue, Daudu urged the court to discountenance the submission of the EFCC lawyer.
Pinherio, in his response, prayed the court to reject the document, arguing that the defence counsel had not demonstrated that the document came within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
Justice Emeka Nwite, consequently, adjourned the matter until May 8 and May 9 for ruling on the admissibility and for continuation of trial.
Earlier, when trial resumed on Friday, Pinheiro, while leading the witness in evidence, asked the AISA auditor to identify Exhibit 13P1.
The witness identified the exhibit as a telex from the bank sent to the AISA via email by Mr Ali Bello.
The witness was also told to identify Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4 and he confirmed that they were transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favour of the respective children of former Kogi governor.
Ohehomon identified Exhibit 13P5, a telex by Whales Oil and Gas to AISA as well as others.
Pinherio asked the witness to tell the court in whose names four of the payment receipts were issued and the PW-3 said they were issued in the names of the four children of ex-Gov. Bello.
