The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled June 26 to deliver its ruling on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking permission to cross-examine its witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, in the ongoing money laundering trial of Yahaya Bello, former Kogi State Governor.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after hearing arguments from both the EFCC and Yahaya Bello’s legal team on whether it was proper for the prosecution to cross-examine its witness following cross-examination by Bello’s counsel, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN.
The disagreement arose when Daudu strongly objected to the EFCC’s attempt to cross-examine the witness after the defence had concluded its cross-examination.
He argued that, under the law, the only permissible step for the prosecution at that stage was to re-examine the witness, not to cross-examine him.
The senior lawyer argued that for the EFCC to lawfully cross-examine its witness, the agency must first declare the witness hostile.
When the case resumed for the continuation of cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had previously testified in other courts regarding the school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja.
Ojehomon confirmed, but stated that he could not recall the specific courts.
Ojehomon, an Internal Auditor at the American International School, admitted to testifying in a similar case involving Ali Bello.
However, he clarified that he had not made any statements detrimental to former Governor Yahaya Bello, nor had he done so in the current case.
Following the conclusion of Daudu’s cross-examination, EFCC’s counsel, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, sought permission to cross-examine Ojehomon on Exhibit 19, a judgment from the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
The EFCC’s lawyer clarified to the court that he was not re-examining the witness but cross-examining him, as the document in question had been admitted into evidence during the defence’s cross-examination.
“I am not re-examining him; I am cross-examining him because the document was introduced by the defense,” he explained.
However, the defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, pointed out that the EFCC lawyer’s stance was both unfamiliar and contrary to legal principles under the Evidence Act.
“If you wish to cross-examine your own witness, you must first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross-examine him based on a document,” Daudu SAN argued.
In response, Enitan SAN asserted that he had the right to highlight specific paragraphs of the document to the court.
At this point, the judge intervened, asking, “Do you have any legal provision to support this?”
Enitan SAN responded, citing Section 36 of the Constitution: “The document was tendered by the defense, and we objected, but the court allowed it. Fair hearing requires that the prosecution, too, has the right to examine this document.”
Daudu SAN countered, saying, “We are not objecting to their right to re-examine the witness. Section 36 guarantees fair hearing, but if they want to cross-examine their own witness, they must show us the law that permits it.”
“They cannot use the concept of fair hearing as a basis to cross-examine the witness,” the defendant’s lawyer insisted.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Nwite decided not to allow the EFCC lawyer to cross-examine the witness.
“Under proper procedure, the witness gives evidence in chief, the defendant cross-examines, and then the prosecution can re-examine. If you wish to continue in this direction, I suggest you formally address me on the matter, and I will issue a ruling,” the judge stated.
After considering both sides, Justice Nwite scheduled June 26, 27, and July 4 and 5 for further proceedings and a ruling.
Meanwhile, the third prosecution witness testified that there had been no wire transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any local government in the state to the American International School’s account.
He also read a portion of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court ruling, which stated there was no court order requiring the school to refund fees to the EFCC, nor was there any judgment declaring the fees as proceeds of money laundering.
