The FCT High Court, Apo Division, has directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to serve the defence with the summary of the statement of former Governor Liyel Imoke.
Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie gave the directive on Monday in Abuja during the ongoing trial of former power and steel minister Olu Agunloye.
The EFCC had listed Mr Imoke as its sixth prosecution witness (PW6) in the trial over alleged infractions in the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba.
However, Mr Agunloye’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe, objected on the ground that the defence had not been served with the summary of the proposed witness’s statement.
Mr Agunloye served as minister in the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. He is being prosecuted by the EFCC on an amended seven-count charge bordering on disobedience to presidential directive, conspiracy, forgery and receiving gratification.
He was alleged to have, in 2019, received gratification to the tune of N5.212 million from Leno Adesanya of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited through Jide Abiodun Sotirin into his Guaranty Trust Bank account for allegedly conveying the federal government’s approval for the construction of the Mambilla project.
The EFCC further alleged that while serving as minister, Mr Agunloye disobeyed a presidential directive on the award of contract for the Mambilla project and conspired with Leno Adesanya to forge a letter titled, ‘Construction of 3,960MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station on a Build, Operate and Transfer Basis’.
He, however, pleaded not guilty.
At the resumed sitting, prosecution counsel Abba Muhammed said the prosecution had filed 11 additional documents as proof of evidence and had served them on the defence.
He said the day’s business was for the continuation of trial and that the prosecution had a witness in court and was ready to proceed.
Mr Adedipe, however, drew the court’s attention to Section 379(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2021, and Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Mr Adedipe said the prosecution must provide the defendant with all material facts needed for his defence, as well as adequate time to prepare, in line with those provisions. He told the court that, despite repeated requests, the prosecution had not disclosed who its next witness would be, adding that this had left the defence team in the dark and unable to prepare.
He said Mr Imoke’s sudden appearance in court was intended to ambush the defence.
Mr Adedipe asserted that there was a distinction between a list of exhibits to be tendered and the summary of witnesses’ statements under Section 379 of the ACJA. He explained that an exhibit before the court could not substitute for the summary of a witness’s statement.
The lawyer, therefore, urged the court, in the interest of justice, to direct the prosecution to file the summary of Mr Imoke’s statement and serve it on the defence.
Responding, Mr Muhammed said the prosecution had complied with the requirements of the law. He added that the witness was listed among other prosecution witnesses in the first proof of evidence dated September 27, 2023, with a summary of their expected testimony.
The prosecution counsel noted that some of the witnesses listed in the proof of evidence had already testified before the court.
Mr Muhammed drew the court’s attention to certain documents tendered through a previous witness, adding that the summary of Mr Imoke’s statement could be found therein.
After listening to both parties, the judge held that the prosecution ought to provide the summary of its witnesses to the defence and directed the EFCC to file Imoke’s summary and serve it on the defence. He subsequently directed the EFCC to file Mr Imoke’s statement summary and serve it on the defence.
He then adjourned the matter until October 19.
(NAN)