A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday ordered a
trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of a former Minister
of the Federal Capital Territory ( FCT ), Jumoke Akinjide, and
others charged with N650 million fraud.
Justice Muslim Hassan gave the order for the trial following
objections raised by the defence counsel, who had argued that
statements purportedly made by the accused were obtained under
duress, threat and inducement.
Akinjide is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) along with a former Minister of
Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, who is said to be “at
large”.
Also charged with them are a former Senator, Ayo Adeseun, and a
Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ) chieftain, Olarenwaju Otiti.
They allegedly conspired to directly take possession of N650
million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of
proceeds of an unlawful act which did not go through a financial
institution.
During the trial on Monday, the EFCC Prosecutor, Mr Rotimi
Oyedepo, had resumed examination of the second prosecution witness,
Mr Usman Zakari, an investigating officer with the EFCC.
In continuation of his evidence, the witness told the court that
his investigations revealed that there were no banking instruments
to justify the claims by the accused that the money came from the
Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ).
Oyedepo asked: “You said that the first and second accused
persons and one Mr Yinka Taiwo signed a receipt of payment for N650
million, what steps did you take as regards the signatories?
In response, the witness told the court that the second accused
was arrested, and then he confirmed that the details in the receipt
were his and that he signed it for the payment of N650 million.
The witness further said that the first accused, in the presence
of her counsel, made statements in relation to the charge and also
confirmed that she had signed for the payment of the N650
million.
On how the confirmation was done, the witness said: “The
confirmation by the first and second accused persons was made while
their statements were taken”.
He told the court that on Dec. 15, 2016, the first accused had
provide a document stating how the N650 million was disbursed
without the use of a financial institution.
The witness said the first accused volunteered statements in his
presence.
Oyedepo then applied to the court to tender the said statement,
having laid proper foundation for case.
At this point, defence counsel raised objection and submitted
that the statements were made under duress and inducement and
requested for a trial-within-trial to determine how the statements
were extracted.
Counsel to the second accused, Mr Micheal Lana, told the court
that the statement of the second accused was also made under duress
and inducement.
He urged the court to allow the prosecution to tender the
statement of the second accused so that the trial-within-trial
would be taken together.
Mr Akinola Oladeji, counsel to the third accused, also agreed
with the submission of Lana, adding that the third accused was even
threatened with incarceration.
In response, Oyedepo submitted that the counsel to the accused
persons could not request for a trial-within-trial as the accused
persons had denied every admission of guilt in their
statements.
He added that the statements were not confessional statements as
the provision of the Evidence Act in relation to trial-within-trial
was only for confessional statements.
Justice Hassan, in a short ruling, ordered a
trial-within-trial.
He held that the court could not determine if the statements
were confessional statements or not since they were not before
it.
Earlier, counsel to the first accused, Mr Bolaji Ayorinde ( SAN
), had raised an objection to the oral evidence of the second
prosecution witness on the grounds that it was a hearsay
evidence.
The court, however, overruled the objection and held that the
evidence was by no means a hearsay.
“I do not want to be misunderstood; all that I am saying is that
the evidence of PW2 is admissible only as to what he carried out in
the course of his investigation.
“The velocity or weight to be attached to that evidence can only
be determined at the conclusion of the trial.”
The case has been adjourned until April 23 and April 24 for
continuation of trial.
NAN
A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday ordered a
trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of a former Minister
of the Federal Capital Territory ( FCT ), Jumoke Akinjide, and
others charged with N650 million fraud.
Justice Muslim Hassan gave the order for the trial following
objections raised by the defence counsel, who had argued that
statements purportedly made by the accused were obtained under
duress, threat and inducement.
Akinjide is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) along with a former Minister of
Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, who is said to be “at
large”.
Also charged with them are a former Senator, Ayo Adeseun, and a
Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ) chieftain, Olarenwaju Otiti.
They allegedly conspired to directly take possession of N650
million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of
proceeds of an unlawful act which did not go through a financial
institution.
During the trial on Monday, the EFCC Prosecutor, Mr Rotimi
Oyedepo, had resumed examination of the second prosecution witness,
Mr Usman Zakari, an investigating officer with the EFCC.
In continuation of his evidence, the witness told the court that
his investigations revealed that there were no banking instruments
to justify the claims by the accused that the money came from the
Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ).
Oyedepo asked: “You said that the first and second accused
persons and one Mr Yinka Taiwo signed a receipt of payment for N650
million, what steps did you take as regards the signatories?
In response, the witness told the court that the second accused
was arrested, and then he confirmed that the details in the receipt
were his and that he signed it for the payment of N650 million.
The witness further said that the first accused, in the presence
of her counsel, made statements in relation to the charge and also
confirmed that she had signed for the payment of the N650
million.
On how the confirmation was done, the witness said: “The
confirmation by the first and second accused persons was made while
their statements were taken”.
He told the court that on Dec. 15, 2016, the first accused had
provide a document stating how the N650 million was disbursed
without the use of a financial institution.
The witness said the first accused volunteered statements in his
presence.
Oyedepo then applied to the court to tender the said statement,
having laid proper foundation for case.
At this point, defence counsel raised objection and submitted
that the statements were made under duress and inducement and
requested for a trial-within-trial to determine how the statements
were extracted.
Counsel to the second accused, Mr Micheal Lana, told the court
that the statement of the second accused was also made under duress
and inducement.
He urged the court to allow the prosecution to tender the
statement of the second accused so that the trial-within-trial
would be taken together.
Mr Akinola Oladeji, counsel to the third accused, also agreed
with the submission of Lana, adding that the third accused was even
threatened with incarceration.
In response, Oyedepo submitted that the counsel to the accused
persons could not request for a trial-within-trial as the accused
persons had denied every admission of guilt in their
statements.
He added that the statements were not confessional statements as
the provision of the Evidence Act in relation to trial-within-trial
was only for confessional statements.
Justice Hassan, in a short ruling, ordered a
trial-within-trial.
He held that the court could not determine if the statements
were confessional statements or not since they were not before
it.
Earlier, counsel to the first accused, Mr Bolaji Ayorinde ( SAN
), had raised an objection to the oral evidence of the second
prosecution witness on the grounds that it was a hearsay
evidence.
The court, however, overruled the objection and held that the
evidence was by no means a hearsay.
“I do not want to be misunderstood; all that I am saying is that
the evidence of PW2 is admissible only as to what he carried out in
the course of his investigation.
“The velocity or weight to be attached to that evidence can only
be determined at the conclusion of the trial.”
The case has been adjourned until April 23 and April 24 for
continuation of trial.
NAN
Read more https://nairalaw.com/akinjide-s-alleged-n650m-fraud-judge-orders-trial-within-trial/