A contention over subpoena, a court document summoning a witness to appear in a case, dominated Tuesday’s session of the former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello’s alleged N110 billion fraud trial at the FCT High Court in Abuja.
The defence’s insistence on seeing the physical copy of the subpoena, the basis upon which the 10th prosecution witness apppeared in court on Tuesday, sparked a heated argument with the prosecution, characterising a bulk of the day’s proceedings.
|
|
Mr Bello’s lawyer, Paul Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said, “Without the subpoena, the authority of this witness cannot stand; what we would have would be hearsay.”
But Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s prosecution lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, also a SAN, argued that Mr Daudu’s objection was legally misplaced because it lacked any statutory provisions as the court had a record of the subpoena.
|
|
|
|---|
Mr Pinheiro noted that the 10th prosecution witness, a compliance officer with Access Bank, forgot to bring the copy of subpoena served on the bank to court for the trial.
Following their submissions, the trial judge, Maryann Anenih, dismissed the objection and adjourned further proceedings till Wednesday.
The EFCC is prosecuting former Governor Bello alongside two co-defendants on 16 counts of diverting N110 billion belonging to the Kogi State Government.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
Mr Bello, who served two terms as the governor of Kogi from January 2016 to January 2024, faces the charges alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu, with whom he allegedly conspired to perpetrate the alleged fraud.
The anti-graft agency said Mr Bello dishonestly used the stolen funds to acquire properties located in choice areas of Abuja and one in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The defendants denied the charges.
Legal fireworks over subpoena
Since the case commenced, seven subpoenaed bank officials from several banks have taken turns to testify, bringing along the copies of the subpoena requesting their appearance, to court.
However, Mr Pinheiro told the court that the 10th prosecution witness forgot to bring along the document, which prompted Mr Daudu’s objection.
Mr Hudu’s lawyer, Z.E Abbas, also adopted Mr Daudu’s arguments.
Mr Pinheiro argued, “Subpoena forms part and parcel of your Lordship’s record. It is an order that was issued administratively by the court.
“This court is entitled to look at any process in its record, and there are a plethora of authorities in that respect.”
He also highlighted that there were no statutory provisions that mandated tendering a subpoena before a witness “who is on subpoena can give evidence.”
“This objection is not merely misconceived but clearly untelling,” the senior lawyer said.
Mr Pinheiro went on to cite some authorities to back his arguments and concluded that disallowing the witness to give his testimony is “an injustice and judicial somersault”. He added that “presenting the subpoena is only a matter of convenience to the court.”
Countering this argument, Mr Daudu said the authorities cited by Mr Pinheiro did not apply to the circumstances of the objections he raised. He also stressed that it was the defence’s constitutional right to see the subpoena presented by the witness.
“It is vital to see the subpoena, to know his coming is pursuant to the order of the court; it is our constitutional right to be carried along.”
Similarly, Mr Abbas also noted that this was necessary to conduct a fair hearing. This kindled an argument, where Mr Pinheiro argued that the subpoena was not an evidential document and that the objections raised were meant to abort the day’s proceeding.
However, Mr Bello’s lawyer assured that this was not a ploy to abort the proceedings.
Following their arguments, the judge dismissed the objection and ruled that it is “suffice to say that they can always bring the subpoena.”
Highlights of testimonies
Nine prosecution witnesses have taken the stand in the case so far.
Two of the witnesses are connected with Efab Properties Limited (EPL) have testified in the trial.
The first was the chairperson of the firm, Fabian Nworah, and the second was an employee.
They were called to testify on a property sold to Shehu Bello with Bello Ohiani written on the agreement.
However, none of the witnesses mentioned the name of the former governor or the other defendants’ names in the dealings.
READ ALSO: Payroll Irregularities: Document reveals findings that led Osun govt to hire audit firm
While seven (bank officials) witnesses’ testimonies reflect a systematic pattern of recurring withdrawals for Special Security funds, transfers to individuals and companies whose identities in the case still remain unclear.
Also, the ninth prosecution witness, David Ajoma, a compliance officer with Sterling Bank, confirmed six separate transfers amounting to millions from the Kogi State Internal Revenue Services (KSIRS) to Bespoque Business Solutions Limited (BBSL) during Mr Bello’s tenure as governor.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
