The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned till 26 June for ruling on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to “cross-examine” its own witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, in the alleged money laundering case filed against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date on Friday after listening to arguments from both the EFCC and Yahaya Bello regarding the propriety or otherwise of the prosecution cross-examining its own witness after cross-examination by Bello’s lead counsel, Mr Joseph Daudu, SAN.
A disagreement arose when Daudu vehemently objected to the procedural mode of cross-examining the witness after the defence had conducted its cross-examination.
Daudu told the judge that the only option available to the EFCC was to re-examine the witness, as required by law, and not to cross-examine him. He argued that, for the EFCC to lawfully cross-examine the witness, the agency must first declare him hostile.
When the matter resumed for continuation of cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts regarding the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja. He confirmed that he had.
However, the witness, an Internal Auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not recall the exact court. He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but stated that he never made any adverse remarks about former Governor Yahaya Bello, just as he had not said anything negative or adverse against him in the present charge.
After Daudu concluded his cross-examination of the witness, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the same witness on Exhibit 19, a copy of the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence from the bar during cross-examination by the defence.
“I am not re-examining him; I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,” he said.
Counsel for the defendant, however, pointed out that the EFCC lawyer’s position was not only legally unrecognised but also strange, in line with the Evidence Act.
“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross-examine him based on the document,” Daudu argued.
Enitan, however, maintained that he had the right to draw the court’s attention to specific paragraphs in the document.
At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?”
“I will draw your Lordship’s attention to Section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected, and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution speaks on fair hearing,” Enitan responded.
Daudu countered, saying: “We are not saying they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he must show us the law that backs that.
He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to justify cross-examining the witness.”
At the conclusion of arguments, the judge refused to allow the EFCC lawyer to cross-examine the witness, stating:
“Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence-in-chief, the defendant cross-examines, then the prosecution re-examines.
With due respect, what I will do is—if you people are so keen to continue with this—it is better to address me on the matter, and I will take a position,” he said.
After hearing arguments for and against the request, Justice Nwite adjourned the case till 26 June for ruling and continuation of the trial.
On Thursday, the third prosecution witness told the court that no wired transfer of fees had been made from the Kogi State Government or any of the state’s local government areas to the account of the American International School, Abuja.
He also read out a portion of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment stating that there was no court order for the school to return fees to the EFCC, nor any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
