A prosecution witness, on Friday, told the Federal High Court in Abuja how he received millions of dollars in cash in a suspicious foreign exchange deal allegedly facilitated by two senior executives of SunTrust Bank.
Suleiman Ciroma, who is a bureau de change operator (BDC), said he received the money for onward transfer to the bank accounts of a business woman and socialite, Aisha Achimugu. Ms Achimugu was arrested on 29 April and is still facing investigations over money laundering and Ponzi scheme allegations.
|
|
The Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting – Halima Buba and Innocent Mbagwu – the Managing Director/Chief Executive and Chief Compliance Officer of SunTrust Bank, respectively.
The commission arraigned the duo on 13 June before trial judge Emeka Nwite on six counts of money laundering.
|
|
|
|---|
The commission accused them of facilitating large cash transactions outside the formal financial system.
For instance, the anti-graft agency alleged that in March 2025, the defendants aided separate cash payments of $3 million each in Abuja and Lagos, without passing through a financial institution.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Mr Ciromah, who is EFCC’s first prosecution witness, began testifying on Thursday.
He told trial judge Emeka Nwite on Friday how the transactions were carried out between him, the defendants, and Ms Achimugu.
During cross-examination by Ms Buba’s lawyer, Johnson Usman, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), the witness said that although he operated both naira and dollar accounts with SunTrust Bank, “none of the money went through my account.”
He also said he received the cash in tranches from Ms Achimugu between 10 and 24 March 2025 at the Abuja and Lagos branches of SunTrust Bank.
“I can also recall that after meeting her, she gave me a total of $1.8 million for conversion into naira, and they were in tranches,” he added.
Mr Ciroma, who told the court he was a bureau de change operator as of 2021, confirmed that he acted as an intermediary for foreign exchange transactions between the defendants and Ms Achimugu. The EFCC arrested Ms Achimugu in April over alleged money laundering and Ponzi scheme operations, but has yet to charge her in court with any crime.
The witness said he learned of Ms Achimugu’s arrest via social media.
Contention over admissibility of documents
During the cross-examination, Mr Usman attempted to tender a series of documents, including the charges document, extra-judicial statements by the defendants and witnesses, and a letter from SunTrust Bank to the EFCC.
But the move was opposed by EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who argued that the defence failed to present certified true copies as required by law.
Mr Oyedepo noted that documents such as extra-judicial statements are only admissible if the conditions under Section 232 of the Evidence Act are met.
He pointed out that pages 32 to 83 of the documents consisted of extra-judicial statements made to the EFCC, which cannot be admitted without satisfying the statutory requirements.
“From pages 84 to 181, which the defence is also seeking to tender, page 84 has already been admitted as Exhibit P1. However, the remaining documents do not meet the substantial compliance required under Section 104 of the Evidence Act. There is no name or designation of the certifying officer, no evidence of payment of certification fees, and no valid certification,” he said.
“My lord, what the defence is attempting to do is to ask this court to play the role of a forensic expert, which is not permissible under the law,” he submitted, urging the court to reject the documents.
In response, Mr Usman disagreed with the prosecution’s position. He argued that the authorities cited by the EFCC counsel were inapplicable to the current facts.
“The document sought to be tendered was fully paid for by the applicant, with a receipt endorsed by the Federal High Court,” he said.
He cited Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), arguing that certification by the registrar and proof of payment were sufficient.
READ ALSO: Socialite Aisha Achimugu to surrender to EFCC one month after being declared wanted
“My learned brother systematically tried to split the documents into segments, witness statements, bank documents, immigration records, but failed. What is sought to be tendered is a charge filed by the EFCC, not separate or disjointed records.”
Citing a Supreme Court decision from 2007, Mr Usman said, “The law is settled that once a document is admissible, its attachments are automatically admissible.”
He argued that the charge, being a single document with annexures, must be treated as one unit. “It is not a requirement of the law that every page must carry a separate certification in line with Section 104,” he said. “What we seek to tender is a certified true copy. The original is before the court, and we have complied with the law.”
He accused the prosecution of being evasive. “They are saying neither reject nor admit. That’s a strange legal principle. The charge is theirs. What are they running from? You can’t blow hot and cold.”
Mr Usman urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s objection and admit the documents.
Following the arguments, the judge adjourned the matter until 16 and 17 October for ruling on the admissibility of the documents and continuation of cross-examination.
