N650m money laundering: Defence seeks to move trial of Akinjide, others to Ibadan division

By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka

Senior Correspondent

A Federal High Court sitting in  Lagos and presided over by Justice Muslim Sule Hassan was on Thursday informed that a letter had been written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, seeking to move the money laundering trial of a former minister of Federal Capital Territory, Oloye Olajumoke Akinjide and other defendants from Lagos division to continue its sitting in Ibadan division of the court.

Akinjide was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) along with a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke who is said to be ‘at large’,  a former Senator Ayo Adeseun and a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain, Chief Olarenwaju Otiti.

They are standing trial over alleged   conspiracy to directly take possession of N650 million, which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act, and without going through a financial institution.

At the resumed hearing on Thursday, counsel to the second defendant, Mr. Michael Lana, informed the court that a letter had already been written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for the court’s sitting to be moved to Ibadan division.

Lana contended that the second defendant is charged with offences which undoubtedly requires the defence to produce witnesses in about 11 local government areas of  Ibadan, adding that the defence had numerous witnesses to call.

“We are not seeking a transfer of this case to another judge or court; we are only seeking for a change of venue, for my Lord Justice Hassan to seat in Ibadan via a fiat”,Lana expressed.

Besides, Lana also informed the court that he had filed a motion dated March 7, seeking an order of the court, directing the complainant to supply those document referred to by the prosecution but not supplied in the proof of evidence.

Citing a Supreme Court decision in the case of Okoye Vs C. O. P, as well as the provisions of Sections 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015,  he urged the court to hear his application, before a further prosecution witness is called.

In like manner, counsel to third defendant Mr Akinola Oladeji, also informed the court that he had an application, seeking to quash the charges against the third defendant, or in the alternative, that the case be transferred to  Ibadan division.

According to him,  the third defendant intends to call about 65 witnesses from nine LGAs, where she served, including party leaders, chairmen and other witnesses.

“I respectfully urge the court to be mindful of the Latin maxim “hastina litin” which according to him, meant, “hasten slowly”, he said.

He added that the prosecution witnesses intended to give evidences in relation to their investigations, stressing that the defence was at complete loss, as to the document sought to be tendered, since same were not attached to the proof of evidence.
He urged the court to be mindful of the position of the law.

Referring to application by the defence for supply of document to be relied on by prosecution witnesses, counsel to the first defendant, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), also aligned himself with the submissions of other defence counsel. He urged the court to show caution, in looking at the application before the court.

Responding to the submissions of all the defence counsel, the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that he was yet to receive the said motion referred to by the learned counsel to the second accused.

He further submitted  that he was not aware of the said letter written to the Chief Judge as stated by second  defence counsel, adding that the instant charge which began in Ibadan,  was transferred twice at the instance of defence counsel.

Oyedepo conceded that in line with the provisions of Sections 379 of the ACJA 2015, the prosecution had duly complied with the provisions of the law, by supplying to the defence, a summary of the statement of the proposed prosecution witnesses. He implored the court to go through the proof of evidence.

In a short ruling, Justice Hassan held that the court was yet to see the application of the second defendant or the said letter, and so, could not make any pronouncement on same.
However, the court held that in its opinion,  the prosecution had complied with the provisions of the law,  since the document sought to be relied upon by the second prosecution witness, was listed in the proof of evidence.

Having resolved  the issues raised by the defence, the judge then asked the prosecutor to call its second witness (PW2).

The second witness entered into the witness box and was sworn on the Holy Quran. In his evidence-in- chief,  he introduced himself as Mr Usman Zakari, an operative with the EFCC, who is saddled with investigation of economic and financial crimes.

Oyedepo asked: “Do you know the defendants?”

Replying, the witness said ‘Yes’  and went further to explain that in early 2015, the commission received a “Top classified category A intelligence”, stating that sometime in December 2014, there was a meeting at the residence of the then Minister of Petroleum Resources (Allison-Madueke).

At this juncture and before the witness could proceed further with his evidence, the second defence counsel Mr Lana raised objection to the line of evidence.

“My Lord, what the witness has just said is completely not in the proof of evidence; there is no where it is mentioned in the proof of evidence,” he stressed

“You see, this is what we were saying all along,”

In a cross objection, the prosecutor Rotimi Oyedepo prayed the court to allow the witness emphasize the “punch line” of his testimony, before the defence raises any objection.

But the defence counsel  insisted  that a copy of the said intelligence report referred to by the witness, “must first” be made available to the defence before continuation of his evidence.

Being emphatic in his position, he cited the provisions of Sections 36 (6) of the 1999 constitution, insisting that the said report be produced.

Other defence counsel equally aligned themselves with Lana’s submissions.

In a short ruling, Justice Hassan ordered the prosecution to meet with the defence and supply them with all neccessary document they requested so as to make progress in the trial instead of entertaining applications and writing rulings.

While adjourning the case until Friday March 9, for continuation of trial, the trial judge also urged the defence to avail the prosecution a list of the document they needed.