The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday adjourned until April 24 to rule on an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking to re-present an exhibit to its witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello.
The trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, adjourned the case after hearing arguments on the validity of the application from EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, and Bello’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN).
The development followed evidence in court that appeared not to have aligned with what Jamilu, the 12th prosecution witness (PW12), had stated in his initial statement to the Commission, which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 46.
The former governor’s lawyer objected to the EFCC’s move to re-present Exhibit 46 to Jamilu, following the witness’s contradictory response during his testimony.
Daudu argued that to contradict its witness, the prosecution must first seek the leave of the court to declare the witness hostile.
The PW12, who is the owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, had stated that he converted certain funds deposited into his account by one Abba Adaudu into United States dollars and handed the same over to him at various times, either in his office or at the recipient’s office in Abuja.
When the EFCC counsel asked if Jamilu could recall delivering the funds at any other location apart from the offices of both parties, the witness said he could only remember making deliveries at the offices.
It was at that point that the prosecution sought to show the witness his earlier statement (Exhibit 46) to the EFCC, but the defence 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’s oral evidence without following due procedure,” Daudu argued.
Pinheiro responded that he only intended to show the document to refresh the witness’s memory, noting that the transactions occurred in 2022.
He referred the court to Section 239(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, which permit a witness to refresh his memory, while also citing other authorities in support of his position.
The defence counsel, however, argued that the authorities cited by the prosecution were not relevant to the objection, stating that the prosecution was effectively attempting to treat its own witness as hostile without obtaining the court’s leave.
“This amounts to a contradiction without first seeking leave of court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act. I also rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu submitted.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned the matter until April 24 for ruling on whether the prosecution can re-present Exhibit 46 and for continuation of trial.
Earlier during his examination-in-chief, the PW12 stated that he did not make any cash deposit at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank.
He said the names Abdullahi Jamilu or Jamilu Abdullahi might have been used as narration in the cash deposits, but maintained that he did not make the deposits himself.
On transactions dated October 8, 2021; October 11, 2021; and March 17, 2022, he stated that one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and that the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.
According to him, after receiving the funds from Abba Adaudu, he converted them to US dollars and handed them back to him.
The witness was also shown Exhibit 37(1), the statement of account of Kumfayakum Global Limited, specifically transactions of December 15 and 17, 2021.