Trial of ex NIMASA boss: Court commences trial-within-trial

To test the involuntariness of statements obtained from a former acting Director General of Nigeria Marine Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Haruna Jauro, facing N304.1 million fraud charges, a Federal High Court, Lagos on Tuesday began trial-within-trial.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) instituted a criminal charge against Jauro who once assumed leadership of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).

He is standing trial alongside Dauda Bawa and Thlumbau Enterprises Ltd on 19 counts bordering on the offences.

The agency accused Jauro and others of conspiring among themselves to defraud NIMASA to the tune of N304.1m between January 2014 and September 2015.

They were subsequently arraigned on April 12, 2016 and had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The court had admitted them to bail in the sum of N5 million each with two sureties each in like sum.

At the last adjourned date, the prosecutor Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo had called its first witness, Mr Orji Chukwuma, who testified before the court how several sums of monies were converted by the accused.

Oyedepo had sought to tender the written statement of the accused as evidence in court, but his move was objected to by the defence counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo, who argued that the said statements were not voluntarily obtained.

Ojo had urged the court to order a trial-within-trial, to ascertain if the statements were voluntarily obtained by the commission.

Justice Mojisola Olatoregun had accordingly adjourned the case for a trial-within-trial.
At the proceeding, yesterday, the prosecutor commenced the trial-within-trial and called on its first witness, Mr. Augustine Anosike, who is head of forensic at the EFCC.

Anosike informed the court that he personally took down video coverage of the endorsement of the statement of the first accused.

He said that his statement was endorsed at the EFCC on March 30, 2016, at about 14; 50 hours, by one Mr. Akeem Lasisi who is an operative of the commission.
The prosecutor then applied for a video tape showing the endorsement of the statement of the accused to be played in the open court.

A video tape was then played out in the court with the aid of a projector, showing how the statement of the accused was endorsed by the EFCC operative (Lasisi).
After the video preview, which lasted for about 35 minutes, the defence counsel (Ojo) began his cross examination, and asked the witness whether he was present in the room at the time the statement of the accused was endorsed.

In response, the witness told the court that he personally video-recorded the endorsement process, adding that there was no demarcation in the room where the statement was endorsed.

The witness also agreed with the observation of defence counsel, that the video recording did not disclose the date of the endorsement as well as the commencement and termination time of same.

On the questions whether the accused was informed that the endorsement process will be video recorded, and whether the recording was edited, the witness answered that it was not shown that the accused was so informed and added that the video was not edited.

Defense counsel then asked the witness to state the process and duration of the recording, as well as to inform the court of his qualification in doing same.
In response, the witness told the court that the video recording took place on March 31, 2016, using a DV mini digital video cassette, which was eventually burn into a DVD, adding that same was handed over to the commission on February 14 (this year).

On his qualifications, the witness told the court that he was trained by a group from Netherlands in digital forensic, and also obtained a training from Sweden in mobile phone forensic.

He also informed the court that he holds a certificate in Cinematography.
On whether the video recording depicted the circumstances under which it was done, and whether it showed the interaction of the accused with the commission, the witness answered in the negative.

On his part, Mr. Akeem Lasisi, who was called as second witness in the trial-within-trial, agreed that he was not a part of the investigation team.