The initial prosecution witness (PW1) from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Suleiman Ciroma, during the current trial of Halima Buba, the Managing Director of SunTrust Bank, and her co-defendant, informed Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday that his company, Funnacle BDC Ltd, was officially registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
Ciroma, during his cross-examination by the counsel for the first defendant, Johnson Usman, SAN, confirmed that by 2021, he was operating as a Bureau De Change (BDC).
He stated that Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, who serves as the Executive Director and Chief Compliance Officer at the bank, are not directors within his company.
Ciroma, who previously informed the court that he was no longer involved with BDC, acknowledged that Funnacle BDC Ltd had not been dissolved in compliance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He mentioned that he encountered Aisha Achimugu in 2021 at SunTrust Bank and acknowledged that, not long after their meeting in 2021, she (Achimugu) provided him with 1.8 million US dollars to exchange into naira and credited her in the equivalent amount in naira.
He mentioned that the funds were provided to him in installments, verifying that he was not present at the Lagos branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10, March 13, March 14, March 20, and March 24, nor at the Abuja branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10.
He informed the court that he was summoned by the EFCC on either April 11 or April 12 concerning the financial activities and was released on the same day.
The witness stated that he made approximately two to three extrajudicial statements at the anti-corruption agency's office and acknowledged that these statements were signed by him, noting that they are part of the charges presented in court.
Nevertheless, when Usman attempted to bring Ciroma before the charge, EFCC's attorney, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, raised an objection.
Usman, therefore, attempted to submit the certified true copy (CTC) of the charges to Justice Nwite, but Oyedepo objected to this action.
The legal representative of the commission argued that the officer authorized to verify the document was the EFCC official who has the original evidence in their possession, which can be examined and viewed after paying the required fee.
"I argue that the document, having been verified by EFCC or presented by the Bar, is not admissible," he stated.
The attorney, who mentioned that pages 32 to 83 contain non-judicial statements made by the defendants to the EFCC as well as other witnesses during the trial, stated that only the EFCC is authorized to verify them.
He maintained that statements made outside of court by different witnesses can only be presented if the requirement outlined in Section 232 of the Evidence Act is met.
"I will not be requesting the court to dismiss the document, but I ask your honor to refuse its acceptance," he stated.
Usman, nevertheless, contested Oyedepo's argument, stating that the cases presented by the EFCC attorney were not relevant to the current situation because the facts and conditions varied.
The document being submitted was completely settled by the applicant, with a receipt fully signed by the Federal High Court.
Moreover, he stated that Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) aligns with their position.
"The officer responsible for these documents is the registrar of the Federal High Court, and the payment made has been acknowledged. Therefore, we have fully adhered to the requirements," he stated.
As he stated, "My esteemed brother has made several efforts to split the document into sections, but was unsuccessful."
Reasons being that what is being offered is a filing made by them, not a charge sheet. He tried to categorize written statements, documents from SunTrust Bank, documents from Immigration, and so on.
"The law is clear that once a document is accepted as admissible, its inclusion automatically becomes legally acceptable," he stated, referencing the highest court's earlier ruling.
The experienced attorney stated that after a document was accepted as evidence, any other documents linked to it would become part of the exhibit.
It is not a legal requirement that each page must be certified according to Section 104. What we wish to present, the original document, is before Your Honor, and what we wish to submit is a CTC.
"Have we violated the law by presenting this charge? The answer is no. That's why the prosecution is advising not to reject and not to accept," he stated, accusing the prosecution of taking an ambiguous stance in their argument, which he described as an unusual legal principle.
Usman requested the court to reject EFCC's claim.
Judge Nwite postponed the case until October 13, 16, and 17 for a decision and to continue the trial.
It is worth noting that Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, who serves as the Executive Director and Chief Compliance Officer at SunTrust Bank, are facing charges related to money laundering involving $12 million.
The pair, in a six-count indictment, was accused of assisting in significant cash transactions without processing them via a banking institution.
The alleged violation is reported to breach Section 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and is subject to penalties as outlined in Section 19(2)(b) of the same legislation.
On June 13, the defendants appeared before the anti-graft agency and entered a not guilty plea to the charges. They were each released on a N100 million bail, accompanied by one guarantor.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.Syndigate.info).
Posting Komentar