By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
The Ex-Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), Ahmed Idris who is standing trial over alleged N109 billion has on Thursday through his counsel Chief Chris Uche (SAN), objected the tendering of a compact disc which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecutor sought to tender as evidence.
The compact disc contains the interview session which the Commission’s operatives had with him and others.
The disc was tendered by the EFCC counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), through the prosecution first witness (PW1) in the trial-within-trial in the ongoing trial of Idris and three others for an alleged fraud.
The trial-within-trial was ordered by the court following the objection raised by counsel for Idris, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) on the ground that his client’s statements which the prosecution sought to tender were not made voluntarily.
The former Accountant-General of the Federation alongside Geoffrey Olusegun Akindele, Mohammed Kudu Usman and Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited, are standing trial on a 14-count charge bordering on stealing, fraudulent diversion of public fund to the tune of N109.5 billion.
They were charged before Justice Yusuf Halilu, sitting at Maitama, Abuja by EFCC, on behalf of the Federal Government in the case marked, CR/199/2022.
The defendants had pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, the EFCC witness, Hayatudeen Sulaiman Ahmed, informed the court that the investigating team recorded the interview session it had with Idris, Akindele and Usman.
When the prosecutor sought to tender the video recording, Idris’s counsel vehemently opposed the tendering of the disc, saying that it amounted to ambush of the defence.
“We vehemently oppose to the strategy of springing this video on the defendants. The witness said the video was recorded on 25th May, 2022, almost three years ago.
“By constitutional provision, the defendants ought to have been served this to enable them prepare their defence,” the senior advocate argued , adding that he was only served the video on Wednesday and was not able to view it before coming to court.
Counsels for other defendants aligned their objections with Chief Chris Uche’s objection, as counsel to Akindele describing it as “a strange bird from a whirlwind”.
Despite the objections, Justice Halilu admitted the video and marked same as an exhibit in the trial-with-trial, following which it was played in the open court.
The witness then told the court that there was no deception on the part of investigators while taking statements from the former AGF.
According to him, “the video made after investigation established that the first to third defendants benefitted from non-existent consultancy from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation”.
Under cross examination by Idris’s counsel Uche, the witness said lawyers of the three defendants were not present when investigators interviewed them on May 25, 2022.
He admitted that Idris made some of his statements to EFCC in the absence of his lawyer, one Gbenga Adeyemi, while some were made in the presence of the lawyer.
The witness further admitted that apart from the interview session with the three defendants which was recorded, there was no video recording of the other statements made by Idris.
According to him, “There are no video for other statements made by the first defendant, there were only witnesses.
“We don’t bring suspects together in taking their statements; it’s only done for interview. We didn’t tell them we were recording the video. There was no lawyer for any of the defendants during the recording of the video.”
Ahmed told the court that he could not remember how many statements the first defendant made to EFCC, though he was involved in taking the statements.
Meanwhile, while adjourning the trial with trial to March 20, Justice Halilu set aside the court’s order revoking the bail granted Akindele.
This followed an application made to that effect by counsel for Akindele, Joe Abraham (SAN), informing the court that the second defendant was not in court at the last sitting as of the time the case was called because he was held up in traffic but eventually made it to court that day.
The prosecutor however, did not oppose the application.
