A Federal High Court in Abuja has slated June 26 for ruling on a fresh application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, seeking permission to cross-examine its own witness in the ongoing trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Bello is facing prosecution by the EFCC over an alleged money laundering case involving a staggering sum of N80.2 billion.
Presiding judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, fixed the date on Friday after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence regarding the legitimacy of the EFCC’s request to cross-examine the witness.
The prosecution’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan (SAN), made the application immediately after the defence counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), completed his cross-examination of the EFCC’s third witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor with the American International School, Abuja.
Justice Nwite had asked Enitan whether he intended to re-examine the witness, to which the senior lawyer responded that he wished instead to cross-examine Ojehomon, referencing a judgment from the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory introduced by the defence through the witness.
“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document, my lord,” Enitan said.
He maintained that, just like the defence, he had the right to highlight specific paragraphs in the document (marked as Exhibit 19).
When prompted by the judge to provide legal backing for the application, Enitan cited Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, emphasizing the principle of fair hearing.
“They (the prosecution) 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 talks of fair hearing,” he argued.
However, Daudu countered Enitan’s position, asserting that the EFCC’s attempt was not supported by the law, particularly the Evidence Act.
He argued that under Nigerian law, a prosecution cannot simply cross-examine its own witness unless the court first declares the witness as hostile.
“We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 of the Constitution says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him (the witness), he will have to show us the law that backs that. He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” Daudu stated.
Following the exchange, Justice Nwite directed both parties to formally address the court on the issue so that he could deliver a ruling.
Daudu, in response to the directive, emphasized that the prosecution’s procedure was unfamiliar in Nigerian legal practice.
“My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by referring the witness to the document tendered in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph one, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence-in-chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act,” he said.
Enitan, in his counterargument, insisted that denying the prosecution a chance to examine the same document used by the defence would be a breach of the fair hearing principle.
He noted that the prosecution had earlier opposed the document’s admission on grounds that it was not authored by the witness.
“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross-examination of PW3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” he submitted.
Earlier, during cross-examination by Daudu, the witness had disclosed that he had previously testified in similar matters involving the payment of school fees by the Bello family to AISA.
Ojehomon acknowledged testifying in a separate trial involving Ali Bello, the Chief of Staff to Kogi State Governor Ahmed Ododo.
He maintained that he had never made any statement against former Governor Bello—neither in the past case nor in the current one.
While testifying the previous day, Ojehomon clarified that there was no evidence showing that funds were transferred from either the Kogi State Government or its local councils to AISA to cover the school fees of Bello’s children.
He also noted that there was no court order directing AISA to refund any such fees to the EFCC, nor had any judgment declared the payments to be proceeds of money laundering.
