Yahaya Bello: Court to Decide Whether EFCC Can Cross-Examine Own Witness June 26

Alex Enumah in Abuja 

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja, will on June 26, decide whether the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), can cross-examine its own witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, in the alleged money laundering case against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello. 

Justice Nwite yesterday adjourned to the said date after taking arguments from lawyers representing the EFCC and Bello on the rightness or otherwise of the prosecution to cross examine its own witness after the cross examination by Bello’s lawyer, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN.

Shortly after Daudu ended his cross examination of the witness, the prosecution indicated desire to cross examine the same witness but the move was opposed by the defendant, who argued that the only option open to the prosecution was to re-examine the witness as required by law and not to cross examine the witness. 

According to Bello’s lead counsel, the only time the EFCC can lawfully cross examine the witness, is when it has declared him as a hostile witness. 

At the resumed continuation of cross-examination, Daudu asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja.

The witness admitted doing so, adding that he could not mention the exact courts. 

The witness, who is an Internal Auditor at the American International School, Abuja, however said he testified in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but, he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

Following the closure of the defendant’s cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Olukayode Enitan, SAN, who represented the commission moved to also cross-examine the same witness on Exhibit 19, which is a judgement copy of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). 

Enitan told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence from the bar during cross examination by the defense. 

“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,” he said.

The defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the position by the EFCC lawyer was not only unknown but strange to law, in line with the Evidence Act. 

“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu argued. 

Responding, Enitan argued that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document. 

At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?”

Enitan said, “I will draw your lordship’s attention to Section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing.” 

However, the defendant challenged the prosecution to present a law that entitles them to cross examine their own witness.

“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” the defendant’s lawyer maintained. 

The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow cross-examination of the witness by the EFCC lawyer.

“Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in -chief and the defendant cross examines, then the prosecution re-examines.

“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this and I will take a position,” he stated.

After taking arguments for and against the request, Justice Nwite fixed June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.

The 3rd prosecution witness had on Thursday, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja. 

He also read out a part of a previous judgement of a High Court of the FCT, that said there was no court order for the school to return fees to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.