Alleged N3.2b Fraud: Court Dismisses Kalu’s Objections, Admits EFCC’s Evidence

Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday dismissed objections raised by the former governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, and two others, to the admissibility of some documents sought to be tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The former governor had on Tuesday urged the court to reject the documents, which the EFCC seek to tendered through one of its witnesses, Onovie Oghenevo, on the ground that the certification of the documents by the commission did not follow due process.

But in his ruling, Justice Idris held that the letter is original and need no certification.

The judge, who cited an Appeal Court decision on Orizu Vs Onyegbuna, stated that “it’s a settled law that a document with attachment has to be admitted with the attachment.

The letter and it’s attachments has the same weight, in the circumstances, the letter and it’s attachments is admissible in evidence,” he held.

Kalu, a former Commissioner for Finance in the state, Udeh Jones Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Limited were arraigned before Justice Mohammed Idris on a 34 count charge of conspiracy, Fraud and money laundering.

They pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Also during Wednesday’s proceedings, the first prosecution witness, Oghenevo, told the court that all the bank instruments, which includes manager’s cheques and bank drafts, obtained by the defendants were issued at the Umuahia branch of the defunct Mammy Bank, but presented at its Apapa, Lagos branch.

The witness also stated that 23 drafts paid to different people were drawn at Government House, Umuahia, Abia State.

He further testified that the cheques were issued on April 7, 2005, by Imaga Okoro, M. A. Udoh, Romanus Madu, and one James, at Government House, Umuahia, Abia State.

However, the witness while being cross-examined by Mike Ozekhome (SAN), informed the court that none of defendants’ names were in the drafts or the cheques. He also told the court that they were not the persons that issued instructions for the issuance of the drafts.

Oghenevo also claimed that a draft of of N2.5 million paid in favour of Slok was issued from the Orji Uzor Kalu Campaign Fund, and that the draft was not issued from the Government House, in Umuahia.

He also told the court that he was not the one that approved the payment, neither did he supervised the approval.

The second prosecution witness, Christiana Ohiri, had already started giving his evidence when the defence notified the court that her name was not included in the prosecution’s list of witnesses.

The witness, who is a Branch Manager at one of the nation’s financial Institution, had told the court, before the objection was raised, about how the branch was contacted by the bank’s head office towards the end of October 2006 requesting for some source documents for some transactions that were done earlier in the year.

She said, “Some of the transactions were listed and we retrieved others from our archives and sent to Lagos. I did not know what the head office want to do with the document.

“By 2007, I was invited by EFCC and certain questions were asked about the documents the bank sent to the commission.

“There were a couple of accounts we were maintaining for Abia State. These included; Abia State Board of Internal Revenue Account, Abia State Judiciary and Government House, Umuahia”, the witness said.

It was at point when EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) sought to tender the bank response to EFCC’s request and the statement of account of Government House, Umuahia, as exhibits that the defence objected.

The defence objected to the admissibility of the statement of account on the ground that it failed to meet up with the provisions of Section 84(b) of the Evidence Act regarding certification.

Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) equally raised objection to the appearance of the second prosecution witness in court on the ground that her name was not included in the list of witnesses.

He described the witness as a ‘busy body and meddlesome interloper’.

In his reply, Jacobs urged the court admit the documents as well as allow the witness to give evidence in the matter, saying that the objection raised by the defendants was unfounded, and aimed at resuscitating the objection that was earlier overruled by the court.

The prosecutor informed the court that though the name of the witness was not listed but her statement, which was used in the earlier trial of the defendants from High Court to Supreme Court, were in page 471-477 of the Proof-of-Evidence. Adding that the agency had been calling the witness since 2008, and used her evidence when the matter was fresh.

He therefore urged the court to admit the documents as well as, allow the witness to continue with her evidence.

The judge has adjourned till today for ruling on the arguments.

The alleged offences according to the EFCC are contrary to sections 17(c) 16, 14(1)(b)17(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2003, and sections 427 of the same Act.

Source: Leadership