Court fixes May 8 to decide voluntariness of Dudafa, other statements to EFCC
The voluntariness of the statements made by Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, an aide to former President Goodluck Jonathan, while in custody of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) will be decided by a Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos.
Justice Mohammed Idris on Thursday fixed May 8 after parties in the matter adopted their written addresses following the conclusion of trial-within-trial ordered by the court to sort out the contentious issue whether the statements raised as to the voluntariness of the statements made by Dudafa’s co-accused, Iwejuo Joseph Nna.
The two accused persons are insisting that their statements at the commission’s office were obtained under duress.
Adopting his written address, Dudafa’s lawyer, Gboyega Oyewole, urged the court to attach high value to the evidence of his client while he was testifying under oath.
He noted that Dudafa was honest enough to tell the court that the initial statements he made were voluntary and that he also specified at what point he was pressurized and guided on what to write.
On his part, Iwejuo’s lawyer, Sunday Abumere, equally urged the court to reject his client’s statements saying they were made under duress.
EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, however insisted that the duo were cautioned before making their statements. He urged the court to accept the statements in the interest of justice.
Dudafa was arraigned alongside one Iwejuo Joseph Nna, a.k.a. Taiwo Ebenezer and Olugbenga Isaiah by the EFCC on a 23-count charge of alleged N5.1billion fraud.
Some of the companies allegedly used by the duo in committing the offences includes; Seagate Property Development & Investment Limited, Avalon Global Property Development Company Limited; Iwejuo Joseph Nna and Pluto Property and Investment Company Limited; Iwejuo Joseph Nna and Rotate Interlink Services Limited.
Others are; Ibejige Services Limited; DE Jakes Fast Food & Restaurant Nigeria Limited and Ebiwise Resources.
The alleged offences were contrary to and punishable under Sections 17(a), 18(c), and 27 (3) (c) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004.
