Yahaya Bello: Court Adjourns To June 26 For Ruling On EFCC’s Request To Cross-examine Witness

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court Abuja has adjourned the hearing of the suit instituted against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to June 26, 27, July 4 and 5 for ruling on the request by the prosecution to cross-examine the 3rd witness and for continuation of trial.

Justice Nwite adjourned the hearing after listening to addresses by the prosecution and defence counsels on the prosecution’s move to initially cross-examine the witness, a position that was rejected by the defendant’s Lawyer, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

At the day’s proceeding and continuation of cross-examination, counsel to the defendant asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, an Internal auditor with American International School Abuja, if he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to AISA, he answered positively.

He, however, said he could not mention the exact courts.

He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

Shortly after the defence concluded the cross-examination of the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, the EFCC’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the Commission’s witness on Exhibit 19.

He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence.

The Defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the prosecution counsel’s position was unknown to law, in line with the Evidence Act.

Pinheiro added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.

The judge asked if he had any provision of the law to support this?”

Phinero responded by drawing the court’s attention to Section 36 of the Constitution.

“They 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,” Pinheiro responded.

“We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that.

The defence lawyer, however, maintained that the prosecution cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness

The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow cross-examination of the witness by the prosecution counsel.

At this point, the prosecution counsel agreed to re-examine the EFCC’s witness and the judge gave him the go-ahead.

However, when the prosecution lawyer proceeded to re-examine the witness, and his questions pointed at cross-examination, as observed by Daudu SAN, the judge insisted that the parties had to address him on the specific issue.

The Defendant’s Counsel, in his address, maintained that the position was unknown to law.

“My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by referring the witness to the document tender in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, 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 stated.

Pinheiro disagreed, saying that in the case of Amobi Amobi referred to by the defendant’s counsel, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial judge ought to have allowed a re-examination of Exhibit E.

He said when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team “submitted that this document was not made by the witness and as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross examination or allowed to be confronted with it.”

“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross examination of PW-3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” Pinheiro SAN said.Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned to June 26, 27, July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.