‘Fayose didn’t make any financial transactions relevant to this charge,’ EFCC’s witness clears Fayose
By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
EFCC’s 13th witness Mr Abubakar Madaki on Monday, told a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos that the first defendant Ayodele Fayose did not personally make any of the financial transactions relevant to the charge before the court.
Madaki gave evidence under cross examination in the ongoing trial of embattled former governor of Ekiti State. Fayose before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke.
over alleged N6.9billion fraud and money laundering offences.
Fayose was re-arraigned before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, on July 2, 2019, after the case was withdrawn from Justice Olatoregun, following EFCC’s petition.
He had also pleaded not guilty to the charges and was allowed to continue on the earlier bail granted, while the case was adjourned for trial.
The commission has since opened its case before Justice Aneke, and is still leading witnesses in evidence.
When trial resumed on Monday. the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) called on the 13th prosecution witness (Madaki), an Investigating officer with the EFCC, to enter the witness box in continuation of his cross examination.
Under cross examination, the second defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) called for exhibit D12, and asked the witness to look through and confirm to the court if there is any transaction relevant to the charge which was personally made by the first defendant.
Responding, the witness said “There is none”
Defence counsel then asked the witness if he recalled telling the court that he did not witness any of the transactions in the case, and the witness replied “I only said it was in the course of investigation”
On whether he acted based on facts in his investigation, the witness replied “Yes, very well my lord”
When further asked if the facts were made available to him by persons who saw or participated in the transactions, the witness replied “Yes, in the course of investigations”
The defence counsel then asked the witness whether all conclusions tendered or made available to the court including the investigations made in respect to the charge. took their root from facts which he was either told or read.
In response, the witness replied “Yes, including documents recovered in the course of investigations”
Defence counsel then asked the witness if he remembered the name “Eruka” and whether a statement was taken from him, the witness replied in the affirmative, adding that a statement was also obtained from him in the course of investigation.
When defence asked the witness to confirm if the said Eruka was in Abuja on the same day the 11th witness Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro had claimed he was in Abuja according to exhibit J.
Before the witness could respond to the question, prosecutor Jacobs raised objection on the grounds that the witness cannot be made to give evidence on an extra Judicial statement of a dead man which was merely tendered.
After intervention from the court that the witness should answer the question in the interest of justice, the witness replied that he could not find the portion where it was stated.
The witness was further asked by Ojo if he came across any document where Fayose had acknowledged receipt of any amount of dollars from Obanikoro, the witness replied that there was no document of acknowledgement.
Under further cross examination by first defence counsel, Mr Ola Olanipekun (SAN) who adopted all earlier cross examinations by Ojo, asked the witness to confirm his earlier evidence that the sum of N4.6 billion was transferred by. the then National Security Adviser (NSA) to one Sivan Macnamara.
In response the witness said yes.
On how the transfer was done, the witness told the court that it was done by the office of the NSA from its impress account to the Diamond bank account of Sivan Macnamara.
Defence counsel then said ; “You said payment was made from NSA to Sivan Macnamara and that part of the money was meant to be transferred to the first defendant”
The witness quickly replied “,I never said transfer, I said it was meant for the first defendant”
Defence counsel then asked if he had investigated why a transfer was not made to the first defendant if actually the funds were meant for him.
The witness replied “questions were asked and investigations showed that it was meant to disguise the source of the money, so it was given by cash to avoid traces”.
On whether he had confirmed if the funds were proceeds of drugs, the witness replied that the money was not proceeds of drugs.
The court then adjourned continuation of trial to July 19, October 17 and 18.
Fayose is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over N6.9billion fraud and money laundering charges.
He was first arraigned on October 22. 2018, before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, alongside his company, Spotless Investment Ltd, on 11 counts charge bordering on fraud and money laundering offences.
He had pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail on October 24, 2018, in the sum of N50 million with sureties in like sum.
According to the charge, on June 17, 2014, Fayose and one Abiodun Agbele were said to have taken possession of the sum of N1.2 billion, for purposes of funding his gubernatorial election campaign in Ekiti, which sum they reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.
Fayose was alleged to have received a cash payment of the sum of five million dollars, from the then Minister of State for Defence, Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro, without going through any financial institution.
He was also alleged to have retained the sum of N300 million in his account and took control of the aggregate sums of about N622 million which sum he reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.
Fayose was alleged to have procured De Privateer Ltd and Still Earth Ltd, to retain the aggregate sums of N851 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of proceeds of crime.
Besides, the defendant was alleged to have used the aggregate sums of about N1.6 billion to acquire properties in Lagos and Abuja, which sums he reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.
He was also alleged to have used the sum of N200 million, to acquire a property in Abuja, in the name of his elder sister Moji Oladeji, which sum he ought to know also formed proceeds of crime
The offences contravene the provisions of Sections 15(1), 15 (2), 15 (3), 16(2)(b), 16 (d), and 18 (c) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011.