The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, rejected the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s objection to former Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi’s attempt to tender an earlier court judgement in his ongoing alleged money laundering trial.
The judge, Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, held that the EFCC’s objection was preemptive.
|
|
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the former governor, through his counsel, Joseph Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had sought to tender an FCT High Court judgment in suit number: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, between Mr Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.
The development occured after the EFCC called its third prosecution witness Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor with American International School, Abuja (AISA).
|
|
|
|---|
However, the commission ‘s lawyer, Kemi Pinhero, also a SAN, opposed the admissibility of the document, arguing that the prosecution was yet to close its case.
Daudu disagreed with Pinhero’s submission.
The defence lawyer argued that the instant document, which is a judgment of another court, was relevant in the case at hand.
Delivering the ruling, Mr Nwite held that the admissibility of documents is strictly guided by law as far as it satisfies the provision of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.
The judge listed the parameters to be considered to include “whether the facts are pleaded, whether the documents are relevant and whether the documents are admissible.”
He said it was indeed glaring that the document sought to be tender in the case of Ali Bello Vs AISA was relevant to the fact in issue.
He said the same document was a certified true copy of a judgement of FCT High instituted by one Ali Bello.
READ ALSO: Shehu Sani challenges Natasha to prove sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio
He said the court agreed with the counsel for the ex-governor, Mr Daudu, that the argument of the anti-graft agency’s lawyer, Mr Pinhero, was preemptive.
According to the judge, courts have moved away from the platform of technicalities to the platform of substantial justice.
“Consequently, the argument of the prosecution that the defence cannot present the document is hereby discountenanced.
“Having said that, the objection of the prosecution is indeed preemitive, consequently, the objection of the learner counsel to the prosecution is hereby overruled,” he ruled.
Mr Nwite therefore admitted the document in evidence and marked as Exhibit 19.
(NAN)
