By Lukman Olabiyi 

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos will today rule on the objections by counsels to former Governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu and two others over the failure of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to serve them statement of one of its witnesses, as required by law.

When the case came up for hearing yesterday, Justice Mohammed Idris had asked the EFCC to open its case against the defendants by calling its first witness in the case.

The witness, Onovah Ovenevoh, was about to begin his testimony when lawyer to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Chief Solo Akuma (SAN) drew the court’s attention to the fact that the statement of the witness was not part of the proof of evidence given to him by the prosecution.

Akuma said service of witness statement on the defence was a constitutional right and a facility that should be provided for an accused person, as enshrined in Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution.

He said: “Where a witness is listed in the proof of evidence and his statement is not front-loaded, such a witness should not be allowed to testify.

“Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) listed the contents of proof of evidence to be the summary of the statements of the witnesses to be called by the prosecution. For the sake fair trial, the court should not allow the prosecution to catch the defendants unaware; it is duty of EFCC to make available all the necessary documents needed to proof its case against the defendants. How criminal trial  should be conducted was clearly stated in ACJA.”

Related News

Also speaking in the same vein, Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozhekome (SAN), said it was important for the prosecution to make the statement of the witness available not only to the defence but also to the court.

Said he: “We ought to know what the witness is going to tell the court and not to be caught by surprise. Section 36(1) of the Constitution emphasised the need for an accused person to be given fair hearing, and for us to have fair hearing, there must be fair trial. Fair trial demands that the prosecution must front-load all the statements of witnesses it intend to call to prove itscase.”

Ozhekome, while aligning himself fully with the submissions of the lawyer to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, urged the court to hold that since the prosecution had not provided the statement, the witness cannot testify.

Countering the defence counsel submission,  EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to discountenance their submissions. He submitted that the witness was in court by virtue of a court’s order summoning him to appear and as such the commission should not be concerned about providing his statement again.

He said: “It is in compliance with the order of the court that the witness is here. He is a court’s witness and not a prosecution witness.

“The role played by the witness was displayed on page 19 of the proof of evidence. This should qualify as his statement.” Kalu was re-arraigned by the EFCC on 34 counts charge of alleged money laundering on October 31, 2016 alongside Udeh Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Limited, wherein they pleaded not guilty and were released on bail.

The legal team of the 1st defendant had the duo of  Godwin Uche (SAN) and  Ozhekome (SAN), while K.C Nwufo (SAN) and Solomon Akuma (SAN) represented the 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively. Kalu had in 2006 disagreed with the then President Olusegun Olusgeun over his third term bid leading to the closure of the former governor’s  business entities, including Hallmark Bank.