Two senior lawyers, Rotimi Oyedepo SAN of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and Johnson Usman SAN on Monday disagree before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja on whether a defendant can cross examine an EFCC witness on issues raised while giving his evidence in chief.

The defendant here is the Managing Director of SunTrust Bank, Halima Buba, presently standing trial before the court over alleged $12 million fraud.

Justice Nwite had to adjourn his ruling till October 16 following an objection raised by Oyedepo against a question directed to the witness by Usman, Buba’s lawyer in the money laundering charges.

Usman, while cross-examining Suleiman Ciroma, the owner of Funnacle BDC Ltd and the 1st prosecution witness (PW1), had asked him to confirm to the court the names of those who collected the money in United States dollars from Mrs Aisha Achimugu, the Managing Director 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.

“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 and 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 EFCC lawyer argued that the fact in issue before the court as contained in the charge, substantially bordered on allegations of cash transactions and 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 are transactions conducted by Ashrap Energy and Oil Services Ltd.

“The core issue for determination in this case is that those transactions, which 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 saying that, “The defendants, having pleaded not guilty, have shifted the burden of proof on the prosecution. In effect, they denied liability 100 per cent”.

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, 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.

“He said Dantani of Ashrap and Trimisi collected the USD and credited her (Achimugu’s) account with naira equivalent,” he said and expressed surprise that Oyedepo did not interrupt him while he was earlier questioning the PW1 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 defendants from defending themselves.

“I urge your lordship to direct the witness to answer my question,” Usman said.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till October 16 and 17 for ruling and continuation of trial.

Buba and 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, an offence 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 who were, on June 13, arraigned by the anti-graft agency pleaded not guilty to the counts, and were admitted to a N100 million bail with one surety, each in like sum.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com