Alleged N6.2bn fraud: Jang objects to attempt to tender personal bank statements

Former Plateau State governor Jonah Jang on Thursday objected to
attempts by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission, to tender
the statements of his two personal bank accounts in court, as
pieces of evidence against him.

The EFCC had dragged Jang before Justice Daniel Longji of
Plateau High Court IV, Jos over alleged fraud involving N6.2
billion said to have been committed when he governed the
North-Central state between 2007 and 2015.

At the hearing of the case on Thursday, counsel to EFCC, Mr
Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), called his 10th Prosecution Witness (PW10),
through whom he attempted to tender some statements of accounts
belonging to the former governor.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that it is the second time
Jang was contesting attempts to submit documents against him, the
first being when he kicked against the submission of “highly
classified documents” from the office of the Secretary to the
Government.

The document was said to have captured the minutes of state
security and executive council meetings of 2014 and 2015.

Jang’s objection was, however, to no avail as the judge ruled in
favour of the anti-graft agency on the resumption of hearing of the
matter on Thursday, June 27.

NAN reports that Jang, who had lost the attempt to stop the
admission of the classified documents, again objected the attempt
to tender the statements of his two bank accounts at First City
Monument Bank Plc.

Jacobs had wanted to, through Mr Kichime Gomwalk, FCMB Branch
Manager, Jos tender four letters from the bank to the commission
with the bank accounts statements attached.

But Jang, through his lead counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN),
told the court that by section 90 of the Evidence Act, such
documents could not be tendered before the court without meeting
some conditions.

“My Lord, we are objecting to the attempt to submit the document
because section 90 (1e) of the Evidence Act says that before such
documents can be tendered, a foundation must first be laid.

“We are saying that for the prosecution not to have complied
with that provision of the law, such documents can’t be tendered or
admitted in evidence.

“Even section 84 of the Evidence Act also stipulates that such
documents must be certified before they could be admissible. The
Supreme Court made categorical pronouncements on such matter,”
Ozekhome argued.

Ozekhome, who was represented by Mr Benson Igbanoi, argued
further, “Details on accounts statements must be issued showing how
they were printed from the computer system and well certified
before any statement of account of a customer can be accepted in
evidence in court.”

Also objecting, Mr Samuel Oguntuyi, counsel to second accused,
Mr Yusuf Pam, told the court that the prosecution counsel was aware
that by virtue of sections 83 and 84 of the Evidence Act, he could
not tender such documents to the court.

Oguntuyi urged the court to reject the bank statements adding
that even if they were accepted, they should be marked as
‘rejected’ documents”.

“Again, the PW10 is not the originator of the documents as
clearly seen on them. One Mrs. Christina Olaitan and one Mr Ahmed
printed the statements and not Gomwalk.

“Gomwalk can’t be the right person to tender the statements
since he is not its originator by law. So, l wish to urge your
Lordship to reject the documents,” he pleaded.

But Jacobs, the EFCC counsel, opined that from the defence
counsel’s points of arguments, they were only objecting to the
tendering of the bank statements of Jang, and not the four letters
written by the FCMB to EFCC.

“My Lord, section 146 of the Evidence Act says that as long as a
document is being tendered by an official from such an
organisation, it is okay and admissible.

“Mr Gomwalk is a Branch Manager of FCMB and is, therefore,
qualified to tender any document that emanated from the bank as
stipulated by law.

“I hereby urge your Lordship to disregard the arguments put up
by the defence counsels and admit the documents in question, as
part of our pieces of evidence against the accused,” Jacobs
pleaded.

After listening to the arguments of all the parties, Justice
Longji adjourned the case to July 10 and July 11 for ruling and
continuation of hearing.

(NAN)

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!