Ezekiel Awojide
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed April 24 for ruling on whether or not the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission could alter the evidence of its witness by showing him his initial statement to the Commission.
The Judge fixed the date on Thursday during the ongoing alleged money laundering trial of the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Counsel to the former Governor, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had objected to the move by the EFCC counsel, Mr Kemi Pinheiro SAN, to re-present Exhibit 46, the 12th Prosecution Witness’s statement to the EFCC.
Daudu SAN argued that, to contradict its witness, the prosecution must first seek the leave of the Court to declare the witness hostile.
This followed evidence in court that appeared not to have aligned with what the witness, Abdullahi Jamilu, had written in his initial statement.
The EFCC witness, owner of Kumfayakum Global Limited, had said that he converted certain funds deposited in his account by one Abba Adaudu to United States dollars and handed it over to the latter at various times, either in his office or at the recipient’s office, in Abuja.
He was asked if he could recall delivering the funds at any other location other than the offices of both parties but he said he could only affirm delivering the foreign currency at the office.
It was at that point that the prosecution counsel sought to show the witness his earlier statement to the EFCC, but the Defendant’s Counsel objected.
“My Lord, I object. If learned counsel intends to contradict his witness, he must first apply to have him declared a hostile witness.
“The witness has clearly stated that the transactions took place only at his office and that of Abba Adaudu. Counsel cannot rely on this document to contradict or augment the witness’s oral evidence without following due procedure,” he argued.
The prosecution counsel said he was only showing the document to refresh the witness’s memory, noting that the transactions occurred in 2022.
He referred the Court to Section 239(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act (formerly Section 218), which permits a witness to refresh his memory, while also citing other authorities that supported his stand.
The Defence Counsel, however argued that the cases cited by the prosecution counsel were not relevant to his objection.
“I contend that my learned counsel is attempting to treat his witness as hostile by confronting him with prior statements already tendered as exhibits.
“This amounts to a contradiction without first seeking leave of the Court to declare the witness hostile, contrary to Section 230 of the Evidence Act.
“I further rely on Ibe v. State (1997) LPELR-1389 (SC), which addresses the consequences of breaching this provision,” Daudu, SAN stated.
At that point, Justice Nwite adjourned the sitting to the next day, April 24, 2026, for ruling on the matter and continuation of the trial.
Earlier, during his examination-in-chief, the PW12 said he did not make any cash deposit at the Lokoja branch of Access Bank.
He said the name: Abdullahi Jemilu or Jemilu Abdullahi might have been used as narration in the cash deposits, but maintained that he did not make the deposits.
On certain transactions of 8th and 11th October, 2021; and 17th March, 2022, he said one Abba Adaudu was the depositor and the deposits were made at the Lokoja branch.
According to him, after receiving the funds from Abba Adaudu, he converted them to US dollars and handed them over to ABBA Adaudu.
The witness’s attention was drawn to Exhibit 37(1), statement of account of Kumfayakum Global Limited, specifically the transactions of 15th and 17th December, 2021.
He identified the nature of entries from Keyless Nature Limited – N100m bank transfer on 15th December 2021; and N400m on 17th December, 2021.
The witness also told the court that Keyless Nature Limited is owned by ABBA Adaudu.
He was also told to confirm the transactions of 18th February, 2022, an inflow from Ejadams Essence Limited into his account, which he did.
The court adjourned until April 24, 2026, for ruling on whether the prosecution could alter the witness’s evidence by re-presenting Exhibit 36 or not, and for continuation of the trial.
