Ammasco account says from the beginning of the relationship, they don’t know Eunisell Ltd, adding that it is only Kenneth Amadi they know
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
A prosecution witness Daniel Meyachi has told a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos that his company Ammasco International does not know Eunisell Ltd but only know Mr Kenneth Amadi (defendant) as their business partner.
The witness said it while giving evidence before Justice Ambrose Lewis Allagoa in the trial of Mr Kenneth Amadi charged with alleged N2.9 billion fraud by the Attorney General of the Federation.
The prosecution had closed its case on Friday March 25 after calling its last three witnesses; a female police officer DCP Ada Uche Anya, a chief accountant with Ammasco International Ltd, Daniel Meyachi and a staff of Access Bank Emmanuel Nwamadi.
After prosecution’s closure of its case, defence counsel informed the court that he will file a ‘No Case’ submission.
READ ALSO
World Bank says 82.4m Nigerians now deeper in poverty
As the matter was called up for continuation of trial, Mrs Aderonke Imana announced appearance for the prosecution while Mr O.J. Akinwale announced his appearance for the defendants.
DCP Ada Uche Anya (Mrs)who was the 3rd witness was led in evidence by the prosecution.
She said that she is a Deputy Commissioner of Police in the department of Finance and Administration Force Headquarters, Abuja, directly working and reporting to the office of DIG.
She told the court how she got a letter from the Attorney General for the Federation (AGF) directing her to review the first report of investigation in the petition against Mr Kenneth Amadi which had been submitted by the Special Fraud Unit, Force Headquarters Abuja to the Inspector General of Police through the DIG incharge of the Unit.
According to her, she was told that there were some grey areas of the report that needed further investigation and review.
DCP Ada Uche Anya told the court that after the review of the report, she found out that the defendant Kenneth Amadi was an employee of Eunisell Ltd, that he rose to the position of CEO, that he floated a company IDID while still in employment of Eunisell Ltd.
She said that her review showed that some payments were made into the Eunisell Diamond account by IDID and that Kenneth Amadi and Happiness Amadi are the owners of the said company.
When asked if she can identify the statements made by the defendant during investigation, she said ‘Yes’.
A bundle of statements made by the defendant in 2017 when the case was really investigated was shown to her and she identified them as the statements of the defendant. The prosecution tendered the statements as evidence and without any objection from defence counsel, the statements were admitted as exhibits.
Also tendered and admitted as exhibits were statement and letter from the representative of Ammasco International signed by the Chief Accountant, Daniel Meyachi.
Under cross examination by the defence counsel Mr O.J Akinwale, the witness who could not tell the court her Police Service Number, confirmed she was enlisted in the police as a general duty police officer and not as a specialist.
She was asked to confirm before the court that between 2016, 2017 and 2018, she worked with retired DIG Michael Ogbizi at Ikoyi, Lagos, worked in Abia and Delta State commands at various times within the period of the investigation.
She confirmed that she was in those places as said.
Defence counsel: You were not there when the defendant made his statement?
Witness: I was not there
Defence counsel: You were not there when Ammasco and AZ wrote letters?
Witness: I was not there.
Defence counsel: Are you aware that in 2017, DCP now CP Ben Okolo of the Special Fraud Unit Abuja signed this report after his investigation which you now claimed to have reviewed?
Witness: I am aware and saw it.
The witness was asked, apart from the statements tendered, ‘you did not interact with the defendant during the course of your review.’
She said that parties to the matter were invited and anyone who wished to make further statements or documents were free to appear before her panel then.
Counsel; Can you tell the court the date the defendant was invited, if he was indeed invited?
Witness: I cannot recall the date.
Counsel: Have you read the amount contained in the charge?
Witness: I don’t know the exact amount
Counsel: You said that you only reviewed the report. Did you tender any document before the court to show the report of your review,?
Witness: It is not for me to tender but the prosecution.
Counsel: Was there any report of your review? Did you tender the report to the court?
Witness: No my lord.
The attention of the witness was drawn to other documents from Ammasco International and AZ in which they exenorated the defendant but she ignored to mention or identify them.
It was put to the witness that from her review, she was aware that all the money paid to the defendant by the named companies were paid to Eunisell Ltd.
Witness: Yes it was paid but at different times.
Counsel: How much were not paid, if any to Eunisell Ltd?
Witness: I don’t know.
When she was told that the Chairman of Eunisell had earlier in his testimony said that the defendant was not owing Eunisell any money, the witness said that she was not aware.
In another evidence by the 4th witness Mr Daniel Meyachi who is the chief accountant of Ammasco, he told the court that he knows the defendant Kenneth Amadi as the supplier of additives to Ammasco for the past 15 years.
“The defendant introduced Eunisell Ltd to our company. We knew Eunisell Ltd through Kenneth Amadi who represented the company and at various times, supplied additives to Ammasco International”, the witness said.
“The defendant has always ensured that we received Eunisell waybills and payments were made for the supplies through an account given to us by the defendant as agreed”.
“I don’t know the owner of Eunisell Ltd. It is the defendant I know. All the money was actually paid through waybills. We don’t have invoice. I have not seen any of the invoice of Eunisell Ltd before. We use waybills”, the 4th witness Meyachi said.
Under cross examination, Mr Meyachi said that throughout the transaction with the defendant, there had never been any dispute with the defendant, IDID and Eunisell Ltd as regards supply, payment or dispute as to the account.
He said that from the beginning of the relationship, they don’t know the company Eunisell Ltd, adding that it is only Kenneth Amadi they know.
The witness confirmed before the court that Ammasco International is not owing Eunisell any amount.
In another question under cross examination, Mr Meyachi told the court that the Chairman of Ammasco is a business partner with Kenneth Amadi, adding that their relationship has been long.
He further confirmed that Chairman of Ammasco told the defendant that he was going to pay Eunisell only through an account given to them by the defendant for the reason of trust and accountability.
When asked to say if Eunisell wrote any letter to Ammasco complaining that the defendant did not pay for the supplies, the witness answered ‘ Not at all.
Counsel: Did you receive all the goods the defendant supplied to you?
Witness: Yes
Counsel: And they were all paid for?
Witness: Yes. There was no dispute of payment between us, the defendant and Eunisell Ltd.
The 5th and last prosecution witness was Emmanuel Nwamadi, a staff of Access Bank.
Led in evidence by the prosecutor, Emmanuel Nwamadi said he is an account officer for 7 years with Access Bank.
He told the court that the complainant Eunisell Ltd operates a corporate account with Diamond bank, now Access Bank in Nigerian Naira and U.S. dollar.
He said that payments were made into the account with name as IDID Nigeria Limited.
According to him, while the payments had narration, some had no narration, adding that the payments were processed as filled in the form by the the person making the payments.
The document of account opening form, Bank statements and letters were tendered and admitted as exhibits.
Under cross examination by O.J. Akinwale, the witness admitted that he was not account officer of Eunisell Ltd between 2006 and 2016.
In another question, he admitted that his bank doesn’t issue multiple accounts.
The witness confirmed that the defendant is a customer of the bank. He further confirmed the statement of account of Eunisell Ltd tendered before the court and admitted as evidence.
When asked to confirm if there was any loan granted to the defendant recorded in the statement, the banker witness said he could not confirm.
The witness was shown a document issued to police and nominal complainant, which is quite different from the one attached to the charge and being contradictory.
With the cross examination of the 5th witness, the prosecution told the court that it has closed its case.
Having closed its case, the defence counsel informed the court of his intention to file a No Case submission.
The matter was then adjourned till May 24 for further hearing and to enable parties file and respond to processes.
