Fani – Kayode, others know fate on admissibility of documents May 31

Peter Fowoyo, Lagos

Ruling on whether to admit or not as exhibit the extra judicial statements made by two former Ministers, Mrs. Nenandi Usman and Chief Femi Fani-Kayode at the office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has been fixed by a Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Justice Rilwan Aikawa, on Tuesday, fixed May 31, 2019 to rule on the admissibility or otherwise.

The duo of Mrs. Usman, a former Minister of State for Finance and a former Minister of Aviation, Chief Fani-Kayode, are currently standing trial before the judge alongside one, Danjuma Yusuf and a company, John Trust Dimensions Nigeria Limited, on a 17-count charge of alleged N4.6 billion fraud.

The EFCC, in the charge marked FHC/L/C/251c/2016, accused the defendants of conspiracy, unlawful retention of proceeds of theft and money laundering.

At the resumed hearing of the trial on Tuesday, the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, sought to tender the extra judicial statements made by the defendants at the commission’s office on the allegations pressed on them as exhibit but the defendants’ counsel, trio of Ferdinand Orbit (SAN), Norrison Quakers (SAN) and Clement Onwuenwunor, raised objection on admissibility of the documents as exhibits.

The defendants’ counsels raised objection on the admissibility of extra judicial statements Oyedepo sought to tender through the third prosecution witness, Shehu Shuiabu, on the grounds that the documents were made in absence of the defendants’ counsel at the commission’s office.

Counsel to Mrs. Usman, Orbit (SAN) argued that apart from not being present when his client made the statement, the statement was made under duress and not voluntary by his client at EFCC office.

On his argument, Orbit (SAN) relied on Section 7 sub section 2 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Besides, Mrs. Usman’s counsel told the court that there was nothing to show that the witness who is also the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) in the case was the one who obtained the statement from his client.

According to the lawyer, the constitution, the Evidence Act and ACJA clearly stated the procedure for obtaining statements from an accused but the prosecution failed to comply with it.

“I urge my lord not to admit these documents as exhibits EFCC did not comply with the law, I pray this Honorable Court not to admit it and mark it as rejected”, he said.

Counsel to other defendants aligned themselves with the argument and they also sighted plethora of authorities to backed up the arguments

Quaker (SAN) further argued that failure to comply with ACJA in obtaining statements from accused could not be ignored for the interest of justice.

Responding, the prosecuting counsel faulted the arguments of all the defendants’ counsels, stating that all authorities cited by the defendants’ counsels were misinterpreted.

He urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the defence and admit the statements as exhibits.