"> Lamido Vs EFCC: Judge Reprimands EFCC - Sahel Standard
October 31, 2020
Politico Top Stories

Lamido Vs EFCC: Judge Reprimands EFCC

Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, advised the EFCC to put its house in order to tender evidence in the trial of former Jigawa Governor, Sule Lamido.

The EFCC charged Lamido, with 43 counts amended charge bordering on abuse of office and money laundering to the tune of N1.35 billion.

Lamido was arraigned alongside two of his sons ; Aminu and Mustapha, Aminu Abubakar, Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd for allegedly defrauding Jigawa.

Justice Ojukwu said that there was a lot of untidiness between the prosecution and it’s witness (PW15), Mr Michael Wetkas in the tendering of bank cheque transactions of the defendants.

“You were to spend time with the witness to decide on what you want to do in court in order to have a seamless proceeding,” she said.

Justice Ojukwu urged the prosecution to rehearse with it’s witness before coming to court.

“How do you want the witness to tender the evidences because you are having frictions between your questions and his answer.

“Try to bring the defence along to see how he can align with you in probably presenting a schedule.

“And if not, it could be just between the prosecution and it’s witness.

“You have forwarded many cheques and not all tallies so I will admit the ones that tally with the amount earlier stated by the witness,” she said.

Justice Ojukwu adjourned for continuation of trial until Feb. 20.

Prosecution counsel, M.S Abubakar, said that he wanted the court to admit the bank cheques as evidence in the case.

Abubakar appreciated the indulgence and patience of the Judge as he battled presenting the ‘complex’ transactions.

Counsel to the defendants, Joe Agi, said that he was not opposing to the application to tender the cheques by the prosecution because they were evidence of transactions carried out by the defendants.

Earlier, the court had admitted some of the cheques presented to the court as evidence by the prosecution through their witness,  but at some point, the agency was in contradiction with its witness.  (NAN)

Please follow and like us:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: