Yahaya Bello: Court Gives Verdict On EFCC's Request To 'Cross-examine' Own Witness

Justice Emeka Nwite set this date after hearing arguments from both the EFCC and Bello concerning the legitimacy of the prosecution's request to cross-examine its own witness following the defense's questioning by Joseph Daudu, SAN.

A disagreement emerged when Daudu strongly opposed the procedure of allowing the EFCC to cross-examine the witness after the defense had already done so.

He informed Justice Nwite that the EFCC's only lawful recourse was to re-examine the witness, as mandated by legal standards, rather than cross-examine him.

Daudu specifically contended that for the EFCC to legitimately cross-examine the witness, it must first declare him hostile.

When the session resumed for further cross-examination, the defense counsel inquired whether Ojehomon had previously testified in other courts regarding the school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja, to which he affirmed.

However, the witness, who serves as an internal auditor at the American International School, stated that he could not specify the exact courts involved.

He acknowledged providing testimony in a related case involving Ali Bello, but clarified that he had not made any negative statements regarding former Governor Yahaya Bello, just as he had refrained from making any adverse comments in the current case.

Following the conclusion of Daudu's cross-examination of the witness, EFCC attorney Olukayode Enitan, SAN, requested to cross-examine the same witness concerning Exhibit 19, which is a judgment document from the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

He informed the court that he was not conducting a re-examination of the EFCC's witness, but rather a cross-examination, as the document had been admitted into evidence from the bar during the defense's cross-examination.

"I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,ÔÇØ he said.

The defendant's lawyer, however, drew the court's attention to the fact that the application by the EFCC lawyer was not only unknown but strange to law, in line with the Evidence Act.

"If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,ÔÇØ Daudu argued.

However, Enitan added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.

At this point, the judge asked: "Do you have any provision of the law to support this?

"I will draw your Lordship's attention to Section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing,ÔÇØ Pinheiro responded.

Daudu in response said, "We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that.

"He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness.ÔÇØ

At the conclusion of the arguments, the judge declined to permit the EFCC lawyer to cross-examine the witness.

According to the established procedure, the witness provides evidence in chief, followed by cross-examination by the defendant, and then re-examination by the prosecution.

"With all due respect, I suggest that if you are so determined to proceed in this manner, it would be more appropriate for you to address me directly on this matter, and I will make a decision,ÔÇØ he remarked.

After considering the arguments for and against the request, Justice Nwite scheduled June 26, 27, and July 4 and 5 for a ruling and the continuation of the trial.

The EFCC witness stated on Thursday that there had been no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State government or any local governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja.

He also referenced a portion of a prior judgment from the Federal Capital Territory High Court, which indicated that there was no court order requiring the school to return fees to the EFCC or any ruling that classified the funds as proceeds of money laundering.