Two Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigators on Tuesday denied coercing Ali Bello, a nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, and his co-defendant, to write their extrajudicial statements in connection with their N10 billion money laundering trial.
The investigators, Yazid Bawa and Adamu Yusuf, who are the second and third prosecution witnesses in the trial-within-trial ordered by trial judge James Omotosho to determine the claim by Ali and his co-defendant that the anti-corruption agency obtained extrajudicial statements from them under duress.
|
|
The witnesses, led in evidence by prosecution lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court that the statements were taken voluntarily, in the presence of the defendants’ lawyers, and without threats or inducements.
Their testimony aligned with that of another EFCC operative, Ahmed Abubakar, who testified as the agency’s first witness in the trial-within-trial on Monday.
|
|
|
|---|
Ali, a nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, is the Chief of Staff to current Governor Ahmed Ododo.
He faces N10 billion money laundering charges alongside Daudu Sulaiman.
The charges relate to alleged unlawful activities during the tenure of former Governor Bello, who is also facing two sets of corruption charges at the Federal High Court, Abuja. Mr Bello himself is facing separate ongoing trials before separate courts over allegations of diverting billions of naira from the Kogi State Government’s coffers during his time as governor.
But they have all the denied all the charges brought against them, putting the onus on the EFCC to prove the charges against them.
Earlier on Monday, Ali and his co-defendants, through their lawyers Abubakar Aliyu and Olusegun Jolaawo, both SANs, opposed an attempt by EFCC lawyer Mr Oyedepo to tender eight statements credited to them as exhibits. Six statements were credited to Ali, while the two were said to have been made by Mr Sulaiman.
Ali was said to have made his statements between 29 November and 12 December 2022, while Sulaiman’s statements were taken on 30 November and 1 December.
Mr Aliyu told the court that his client’s statements were not voluntary. Mr Jolaawo similarly argued that his client was threatened by EFCC operatives, but the prosecution disagreed.
The defence said the defendants were threatened with detention if they did not write the statements in the manner prescribed” by the EFCC, they would not be allowed to leave.
Following the submissions, the trial judge, Mr Omotosho, ordered a trial-within-trial, and the EFCC investigator Mr Abubakar, testified that neither “Yazid Bawa nor the team leader, Adamu Usman Yusuf,” threatened or induced the defendants.
He confirmed that Ali was given a cautionary word notice, which he signed, and told the court Ali “chose to write in the absence of his lawyer.” He denied the use of an electric chair.
The court adjourned to Tuesday(today) for the continuation of the trial-within-trial.
Tuesday’s proceedings
At the resumed proceedings on Tuesday,
Mr Oyedepo, the prosecution lawyer, reminded the court that 17 witnesses had been called in the substantive trial, including Mr Abubakar, who had testified on Monday. Mr Abubakar testified in both the substantive trial and the trial-within-trial. He first took the witness stand in the main trial before the defence called for a trial-within-trial when the tendering the defendants’ extrajudicial statements became an issue.
Subsequently, Mr Bawa, EFCC’s second witness in the trial-within-trial, told the court he investigates suspects and gathers evidence, and that he was with the Lagos monitoring unit when the defendants made their statements in 2022.
Led by Mr Oyedepo, Mr Bawa denied “forcing the defendants to give statements”.
He said after findings are issued, “we usually ask the people involved to react to our findings.”
He added that he does not have the power to detain anyone.
“No my lord, we did not threaten the defendants, we made sure they understood the cautionary words. It is also part of the rules that their lawyer be present and in this case” he said.
He also explained that Ali Bello’s lawyer was present when he made his statements on 29 November 2022.
During cross-examination, by Ali’s lawyer, Mr Bawa insisted he remembered that the defendants made their statements voluntarily in their office. But he admitted that the first defendant, Ali, “was in our custody and he had no lawyer with him on the statement made on 30 November, between 3 p.m. and 10 p.m.”
Looking confused, he confirmed that for a statement taken on 11 December 2022, lasting seven hours, the defendant “did not have a legal representation, but he volunteered to write it” in the absence of the lawyer.
When asked “if it is not true that you told the defendant to say that the property he purchased was for Yahaya Bello or else he will rot in detention,” the witness denied telling Ali such.
Mr Bawa also said he was unaware of any obligation to record audio or video of the interviews.
Further fielding cross-examination questions from the second defendant’s lawyer, Mr Jolawaawo, Mr Bawa said he could not recall how the defendant came into custody or when he was released.
He said the statements were taken in an open space where the defendants sat side by side, and acknowledged that the lawyer was present.
He denied a claim that the defendants were not allowed to use the toilet, and said he could not recall whether CCTV was used.
On the issue of timing in Exhibit B1, he said, “I do not know why the time is not written. Everything here is written by the defendants. I am not the team leader.”
He also denied that he or Adamu Yusuf “threatened the defendant with an electric chair. “ In fact I have never seen one.”
Re-examination
After the cross-examination the court asked if the prosecution intended to reexamine the witness, an opportunity the prosecution lawyer took.
During re-examination, Mr Oyedepo asked Mr Bawa whose responsibility it was to indicate the time statements were taken.
But at this point, the defendant’s lawyers objected, and told the court that they did not ask the witness questions in that direction.
Responding, My Oyedepo told the court that there was a need for the witness to answer that question because the court only dealt with evidence.
Reacting to their arguments, the judge, Mr Omotosho, overruled the defence’s objection on the grounds that their question on timing provided a foundation for the question asked by the prosecution lawyer.
Mr Oyedepo then repeated the question and the witness explained that it was “the responsibility of the defendants to time the statements.”
Another witness speaks
The trial-within-trial continued with the testimony of Mr Yusuf, also an investigator with EFCC.
Mr Yusuf, EFCC’s third witness in the trial-within- trial, confirmed that he knew “the defendants, Ali Bello and Dauda Sulaiman.”
He said he was the head of the monitoring unit in the Lagos office when the matter was assigned to the Chairman, Monitoring Unit. He also identified “Yazid Bawa and Audu Abubakar as members of his team.”
Mr Oyedepo also explained to him the defendants’ allegations of threat from the commission while obtaining their extrajudicial statement.
Reacting to the allegations, Mr Yusuf said it was “a surprise” to hear such allegations.
He told the court that, reviewing the statements, there were instances where the defendants said they would not comment and where they deferred to “his excellency” to respond, and these were allowed.
He said a lawyer identified as Mr Abbas was always present during the sessions, and that breaks were allowed for meals.
When asked whether the statements were obtained involuntarily, he said, “That is not true, my lord,” adding, “it was taken voluntarily and I remember Barrister Abbas always endorsed the statements.”
On specific statements, TWTA of 29 November 2022 and TWTA4 of 11 December 2022, Mr Yusuf said the defendants were not forced. “If I can remember, the lawyer gave an excuse. On these dates the lawyers were not around, there were no allegations, he only made denials,” he said.
Regarding statements that took many hours to pen down, the witness explained that “anytime there was a longer time,” there might been a break in between.
He added, “Most of the statements you see with a longer time, we used to call them to eat or attend to visitors, sometimes, when we are taking it, they would say they are tired and we would leave it and continue again.”
He also denied the existence of an electric chair in EFCC offices.
Asked about recording devices and CCTV, the witness said the office did not have CCTV because it was an open space, and that no recordings were made because “there was no confession; it was only denials.” He also said the defendants were never maltreated.
During cross-examination Ali’s lawyer, Mr Aliyu, asked whether the witness could produce a copy of the bail offer.
Mr Yusuf said he would look for it as it was “in a bag.” He admitted he did not have a court order and was not aware of any court order regarding the detention of the first defendant.
On procedural questions, he confirmed that it was acceptable for the EFCC to take statements of the two defendants separately and that the office was large enough to accommodate this. The statements were not taken on the same day.
READ ALSO: EFCC arraigns couple on N740 million investment fraud charges
During cross-examination by Mr Jolaawo, Mr Dauda’s lawyer, Mr Yusuf confirmed that food was brought for the first defendant (Ali) and was allowed. When asked whether he threatened the defendant with an electric chair, he responded with a smile: “That is not correct.”
He could not recall exactly when the defendant was released from custody. He denied ever getting angry over minor issues, including the incorrect spelling of a defendant’s name.
The witness also admitted that he did not have any bail or remand orders regarding the second defendant. He also explained EFCC never kept any witness or suspect beyond 48 hours.
The judge adjourned further proceedings until Wednesday.
