Our reporter|The Federal High Court Abuja has fixed May 8 for ruling on whether or not, to admit a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court between Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Friday, counsel to Yahaya Bello, Joseph Daudu (SAN), sought to tender the document, which had decided on the issue of payment of fees or refund, in the ongoing case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State.
The Defence Counsel had also sought to tender the receipts of the re-certification of the said documents.
Counsel to the EFCC, Kemi Phinero (SAN), objected saying that the Prosecution had not yet closed its case.
Reacting, Daudu said the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases was governed strictly and exclusively by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.
“Once it is adjudged, we submit that the document is relevant, it becomes automatically admissible. That is what is contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011,” he said.
“The question for your lordship is, is this document relevant and admissible in line with Section 4? The answer has been provided by my learned brother Silk for the prosecution.
“He referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which says that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment.”
Dauda said the public documents they sought to tender had American International School Abuja, as a party and that, as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness Nicholas Ohehomon, was the sole witness of AISA in the matter.
The Defence Counsel added that the objection of the prosecution was speculative because “he does not know what we want to do with the record yet.”
“Because he (Pinhero SAN) is not comfortable with the document does not stop its admissibility,” he added.
Pinhero, however, urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the Defence Counsel had not demonstrated that it comes within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
Subsequently, presiding judge, Emeka Nwite held that a date would be given for ruling on the admissibility of the FCT High Court judgment.
He adjourned the case to May 8 and 9, for ruling on the admissibility and continuation of trial.
Earlier, the EFCC Counsel asked the Registrar to give the witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, Exhibit 13P1.
The witness identified the exhibit as a telex from the bank sent to the school via email by Ali Bello.
The witness was also told to identify Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4 and he confirmed that they were transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favour of the respective children.
He identified Exhibit 13P5, a telex by Whales Oil and Gas to American International School, as well as others.
During examination, EFCC Counsel asked the witness to tell the court in whose names four of the payment receipts were issued.
He said they were issued in the names of four children of the former governor, after being prompted by the Prosecution Counsel.
The Defence Counsel, however, interjected saying that the witness should read the names on the receipt.
Meanwhile, the Defence Counsel could not proceed with his cross-examination because the Judge had to adjourn for ruling on the admissibility of an earlier judgment of the FCT High Court on the issue of payments of school fees.
Citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act, he argued that the defendant could not tender documents at a time when the prosecution was still proving its case.
Leave a Reply