Court To Conduct Trial-Within-Trial In Former Minister Trial Over Alleged N650m Fraud
Justice Muslim Hassan of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday fixed April 23 to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of the extrajudicial statements made by former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory ( FCT ), Jumoke Akinjide and her co-accused to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Hassan fixed the date after counsel to Mrs. Akinjide and others, charged with N650 million fraud, claimed that the extrajudicial statements were obtained by the EFCC under duress, threat and inducement.
The former Minister, a former Senator representing Oyo Central Senatorial District, Ayo Ademola Adeseun and a politician, Chief Olanrewaju Otiti are standing trial before the court on a 24-count charge of alleged N650 million fraud.
The accused persons were also accused of conspiring to directly take possession of N650million, which they reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act.
According to the EFCC, they allegedly received the money from Mrs Alison-Madueke in the build- up to the 2015 general election.
The money was said to be part of a larger sum of $115 million allegedly doled out by Mrs. Alison-Madueke to influence the outcome of the 2015 presidential election.
However, they all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Monday, the judge dismissed objection raised by counsel to the first accused, Bolaji Ayorinde ( SAN ) to the oral evidence of the second prosecution witness, Usman Zakari on the grounds that it was a hearsay evidence.
The court held that the evidence was by no means a hearsay.
Justice Hassan held, “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 court held.
However, attempt by the EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo to continue to lead Zakari, who is an investigating officer with the EFCC, was again objected to by the defence team led by Ayorinde.
Before the objection, the witness had 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 ).
He further testified 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.
Zakari also claimed 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 December 15, 2016, the first accused had provide a document stating how the N650 million was disbursed without the use of a financial institution.
Zakari also stated that the first accused volunteered statements in his presence.
It was at the point when Oyedepo asked the court for leave to tender the extrajudicial statement that the defence counsel raised objections to the move.
All the three defence lawyers insisted 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, Micheal Lana, told the court that the statement of the second accused was also made under duress and inducement.
Lana prayed 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 his reaction, Oyedepo maintained 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.
The lawyer contended 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.
But 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.
The case has been adjourned until April 23 and April 24 for continuation of trial.
