Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed June 15 for ruling on whether a statement by an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness is admissible under the Evidence Act in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
The judge fixed the date after counsel for both parties adopted their submissions on the propriety of the application.
The issue arose when EFCC counsel, Enitan, sought to tender the extra-judicial statement of the 14th prosecution witness (PW-14), Shehu Bello, during the continuation of the examination-in-chief.
Earlier, when the case was called, EFCC lead counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), informed the court that the matter was for continuation of PW-14’s examination-in-chief and indicated that his colleague, Enitan, would lead the witness in evidence.
While being led in evidence, the witness testified about his involvement in a property located at Plot 1891, Dalla Hills, Maitama, Abuja.
He told the court that payments for the property were made by Ali Bello, adding that on some occasions, payment was made in cash.
When asked the currency used for the cash payments, the witness said it was in naira.
PW-14 also confirmed knowledge of another property located at Plot 1058, Cadastral Zone A08, Wuse II, Abuja, and gave details of what he knew about it.
He further confirmed that he had previously made a statement to the EFCC when asked.
However, when Enitan sought to tender the statement in evidence, counsel to the defence, Adedeji, objected.
Adedeji argued that the statement was inadmissible for the purpose for which the prosecution sought to rely on it.
“Before I give my reasons as to why it is inadmissible at this stage, it is important to put it in context. I am referring my lord to the proceedings of yesterday.
“My lord, we submit with respect that the statement sought to be tendered this morning by the prosecution as though it constitutes substantive evidence in support of the prosecution’s case is a misconception of the law and is inadmissible at this stage.
“We submit that the extra-judicial statement is for the use of the defence under Sections 223, 224, 225, 230, 232, 237 and 238 of the Evidence Act,” he said.
According to him, the statement is generally inadmissible except for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness for the defence.
Adedeji further argued that the statement was not confessional and therefore could not be admitted against the defendant at this stage.
“My lord, the situation is different from what your lordship ruled on earlier that the prosecution could refresh the memory of the witness,” he added.
Responding, EFCC counsel Enitan disagreed, describing the defence’s argument as a misapplication of the law and relevant authorities.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter to June 15 for ruling and June 18 for continuation of trial.
Earlier, PW-13, Baba Bappa, had told the court that he did not engage in any property transaction with the former governor.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), the estate surveyor and facility manager said he only knew the ex-governor as a public figure and not in relation to any property transaction before the court.