Court Fixes March 23 To Rule On Alison-Madueke’s $115, 010,000
Justice Rilwan Aikawa of the Federal High Court Lagos will on March 23 decide whether or not to admit in evidence the list of beneficiaries of the sum to of $115, 010,000 allegedly linked to the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke.
The court fixed the date after counsel to a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dele Belgore and a former Minister for National Planning, Prof. Abubakar Sulaiman objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that it has not met with the conditions laid down in Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
Belgore, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chieftain who contested the governorship election in Kwara State in 2015 and the former Minister, who served during President Goodluck Jonathan’s Administration were arraigned before the court on a five count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
The EFCC had alleged in charges that Allison-Madueke conspired with Belgore and Sulaiman on or about March 27, 2015, to directly take possession of the sum of N450 million, which they reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of unlawful act.
The trio were also alleged to have taken the said funds in cash, which exceeded the amount authorized by law, without going through the financial institutions.
Belgore and Sulaiman were also alleged to have paid the sum of N50 million to one Sheriff Shagaya, without going through the banks.
The offences according to the prosecutor, Mr. Oyedepo, are contrary to Sections 18(a)15(2)(d),1(a), 16(d) and punishable under sections 15(3) and 4, 16 (2)(b), and 16(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.
Both Belgore and Sulaiman once again pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, Belgore’s counsel, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) had insisted that the list sought to be tendered by the anti-graft agency emanated from the mail box of the maker.
Shofunde cited Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which according to the SAN, governs documented evidence printed out from the computers.
The lawyer argued that, “The document sought to be tendered has not met with the conditions made out in Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
“The document shows that the list was made from ‘My Mail Box’ of [email protected].
“The certificate itself was not made by the witness and that makes it more like a ‘yahoo, yahoo’ document and I urge your lordship to rejection same.”
In his objection, counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo argued that there is a certificate attached to the document sought to be tendered, which authenticate it.
Oyedepo also submitted that the certificate came from a financial institution and signed by one Boye Ogunmolade who is the Chief Compliance Officer of the financial institution.
He further stated, “The document was identified by the witness as the list containing names of beneficiaries, and the transactions carried out by the financial institution.
“It is not the spirit of Section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act, that the a certifying officer who is merely to confirm the functionality or otherwise of the devices used in printing out the document to come and give evidence.
“Substantially, we have complied with provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
“The certifying officer had confirmed that the document was printed in the ordinary course of business of the financial institution.
“He also certified that the list was produced by the computer owned by the financial institution. Throughout the period the document was printed, the computer used in printing the document was functioning properly.
“There is no contrary evidence to controvert this certification. The witness can validly tender the document he has identified forms part of the transactions.
“It is an exception that a document must be tendered by its maker where the document emanates.”
Prior to this time, the EFCC lawyer had sought the leave of Justice Aikawa to reopen the evidence in chief of its witness, Timothy Olaobaju, so as to further examine him on the document.
While being led in evidence, Olaobaju insisted that the sum was offloaded to the loading bay for the beneficiaries to take possession.
According to the witness, “The money was counted by way of bundle counting, and they were in N1000 and N500 denominations.
“The money was kept overnight with the financial institution and in the vaults.
“That very day, before the beneficiaries came, we had already stacked the money for them to pick.
“But there was a delay because the minister refused to show his identity card.
“The beneficiaries said they could not carry the money that night because it was late.
“It is not true that none of the beneficiaries collected a dime.”
