The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Oct. 16 for ruling on whether the Managing Director of SunTrust Bank, Halima Buba, can cross-examine an EFCC witness
By Taiye Agbaje
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Oct. 16 for ruling on whether the Managing Director of SunTrust Bank, Halima Buba, can cross-examine an EFCC witness on issues raised while giving his evidence-in-chief.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the trial on Monday following an objection raised by EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, against a question directed to the witness by Johnson Usman, SAN, who appeared for Buba in the money laundering charge.
Usman, while cross-examining Suleiman Ciroma, the owner of Funnacle BDC Ltd and the first prosecution witness (PW-I) had asked him to confirm to the court the names of those who collected the dollars from Mrs Aisha Achimugu, the MD of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Ltd.
Earlier, Usman asked Ciroma to confirm that Mr Hassan Dantani is the MD/CEO of Ashrap Energy Oil Ltd and the witness answered in affirmative.
The PW-II also confirmed that Dantani is the MD/CEO of Ashrap BDC Ltd when he was asked by the lawyer.
“Confirm that Trimisi Mohammed Usman who you referred to earlier in your evidence-in-chief, that he is the director of Triple A and D Nig Ltd,” Usman asked, and Ciroma answered in affirmative.
The witness equally confirmed that Trimisi is the director of Triple A and D BDC Ltd.
“Confirm that Hassan Dantani of Ashrap BDC and Trimisi Mohammed Usman of Triple A and D BDC were those that collected the money (in USD) in this transaction from Aisha Achimugu,” Usman had asked the witness but Oyedepo raised an objection to the question.
The anti-graft agency’s lawyer argued that the fact in issue before the court as contained in the charge, substantially bordered on allegations of cash transactions.
He submitted that the question put to the witness was not relevant in issue or remotely connected to the facts in issue.
“My lord, there are two separate legal entities that are involved or that had featured.
“They are Ashrap Energy Oil Services Ltd which is contained in the charge before your lordship and the Ashrap BDC now being introduced by the defence to the witness.”
He said though the word, “Ashrap” featured in the two entities, they are different companies.
“The case of the prosecution as contained in the charge which the defendants are only entitled to defendants are transactions conducted by Ashrap Energy and Oil Services Ltd.
“The core issue for determination in this case is that those transactions, which perforce, exceeded the legal threshold were conducted without going through financial institutions.
“I refer your lordship to Section 21(a), Section 2(1), and Section 19(1)(d) of the Money Laundering Prohibition and Prevention Act.
“Furthermore, by the provision of that law, the financial institutions as defined not only limited to commercial banks but also extended to registered and licensed BDC firms regarded as authorised dealers,” he said.
Oyedepo argued that the attempt by Usman to cross examine Ciroma on the question was not only to mislead the witness but to also introduce a strange fact that was not in issues between the parties.
But Usman vehemently disagreed with Oyedepo ‘s submission.
“My lord, the effect of the entire argument of my learner brother is that the defendants standing trial should kowtow to his charge and lead evidence in support of the charge.
“The defendants, having pleaded not guilty, have shifted the burden of proof on the prosecution. In effect, they denied liability 100 per cent,” he said.
Citing Section 223 of the Evidence Act, he enumerated the purpose of a cross examination in a trial.
The lawyer, who cited Section. 215(2) of Evidence Act, said though a cross examination must relate to relevant facts, he argued that the law equally “states that this needs not be confined to what the witness testified in his examination-in-chief.”
Usman further argued that while giving his evidence-in-chief, Ciroma mentioned that Dantani and Trimisi collected the money from Mrs Achimugu.
“My lord, we are only referring him to what he had said earlier as can be seeing in the record of proceedings.
“He said Dantani of Ashrap and Trimisi collected the USD and credited her (Achimugu’s) account with naira equivalent,” he said.
The lawyer expressed surprise that Oyedepo did not interrupt him while he was earlier questioning the PW-I about Dantani and Trimisi only to raise objection on how the money was received.
“Having regard to this, I humbly urge my lord to discountenance this objection.
“It is an objection attempting to muscle the defendabts from defending themselves.
“I urge your lordship to direct the witness to answer my question,” Usman said.
Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Oct. 16 and Oct. 17 for ruling and continuation of trial.
Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of SunTrust Bank, are being prosecuted on money laundering offences to the tune of $12 million.
The duo, in a six-count charge, was alleged to have aided high-value cash transactions without routing them through a financial institution.
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.
The defendants were, on June 13, arraigned by the anti-graft agency.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, and admitted to a N100 million bail with one surety, each in like sum.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)