‘N300m fraud’: Court admits fresh evidence against ex-PDP chair Haliru

Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court Abuja yesterday admitted documents as exhibits in the ongoing trial of former National Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party, Bello Mohammed Haliru, his son and company over N300m fraud. The documents were tendered by prosecution witness as evidence and proof that the said amount (N300 million) was laundered by Haliru, his son Abba (1st defendant) and their company, BAM Projects and Properties Ltd (2nd defendant). Haliru, a former minister of defence and exNational Chairman of PDP during President Goodluck Jonathan administration, was said to have received the sum of N300million from the then National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd) with his instruction that it should be paid into his son’s company bank account.
The said documents, which included the account opening package, statements of accounts and certificate of identification, were issued by Ecobank plc, in respect of funds transfer made by Haliru’s company to Kumu Gomo Company Ltd. The documents showed a transaction on March 18, 2015, where the sum of N137.2million, being RTGS funds transfer, in favour of Kumo Gomo by Bam projects and properties was made. However, when Oluwaleke Atolagbe, the prosecution counsel, sought to tender the documents through witness number 7, (pw7), Chidi Eboigbe, a compliance officer with Ecobank, the defence lawyers vehemently opposed their admissibility. Specifically, Solomon Umoh (SAN), counsel to the 1st defendant, had argued that the documents were not front loaded as well as attached to the proof of evidence as required under the law, thereby making them irrelevant. But in his ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the documents, Justice Mohammed overruled the objection of the defence counsel to the admissibility of the bank documents.
The court agreed with the prosecution counsel that Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act does not guide admissibility of documents, but Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 2011. In addition, Justice Mohammed held that not front loading a document “does not make a document irrelevant”. Consequently, the court admitted the letter dated 23rd, May 2017, issued by Ecobank, statement of account and the certificate of identification dated May 22nd, 2017, into evidence.

 

Leave a Reply