Former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on Tuesday disagreed over the competence of a subpoenaed witness called to testify in Lamido’s ongoing money laundering trial.
The disagreement occurred before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Lamido is being prosecuted by the EFCC over alleged money laundering involving ₦1.35 billion.
He is standing trial alongside his two sons, Aminu and Mustapha; Aminu Wada Abubakar; and their companies, Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.
The defendants, through their counsel, Joe Agi, SAN, had applied for the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, or any official of the commission to be summoned to give evidence in their defence after their no-case submission was dismissed.
The defendants had filed a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case, having called 17 witnesses.
Although the matter was earlier reassigned to Justice Peter Lifu after a Supreme Court judgment upheld the trial court’s ruling, the EFCC insisted that Justice Ojukwu, who had earlier handled the matter, should conclude the trial. The case was subsequently reassigned to her.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, Kayode Oyetunde, an EFCC staff member and investigator, was called by the commission’s counsel, Chile Okoroma, SAN, to testify.
However, Agi sought an adjournment to enable the defence team to interface with the subpoenaed witness.
Okoroma opposed the application for adjournment and instead urged the court to stand down proceedings briefly to allow the defence access to the witness, noting that all documents produced by the subpoenaed witness had already been frontloaded before the court.
Justice Ojukwu refused to adjourn the matter and warned that she would strike out the subpoena if the adjournment request was granted.
The judge then stood down the matter for one hour to allow the defence team to interact with the witness.
When proceedings resumed, Oyetunde entered the witness box and admitted that he was not part of the original investigative team. He said he was only directed to search for documents requested in the subpoena.
Following the admission, Agi said he could not proceed with the witness because he had no direct knowledge of the case.
The defence counsel argued that a witness who knew nothing about the investigation could not give useful evidence, and urged the EFCC Chairman to make available a witness who was relevant to the case.
Okoroma disagreed, insisting that all documents requested in the subpoena had been produced.
He argued that the EFCC is a corporate entity and can be represented by any of its officials.
The prosecution counsel also submitted that a subpoena was not sacrosanct and urged the court not to give weight to the defence’s complaint.
Justice Ojukwu, while responding to Agi’s reference to one of the prosecution witnesses who had earlier testified, advised him to file an application if he wanted the witness recalled.
She said a subpoena would only be appropriate where a witness refused to come to court.
