Emmanuel Thomas l Wednesday, March 01, 2017
IKOYI, Lagos, Nigeria – Efforts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC to move ahead with the trial of former Governor of Oyo State. Chief Rasheed Ladoja today met a brickwall when lawyer to the former to the former governor objected to move by the EFCC to tender a petition in evidence against Ladoja and his co-defendant, Waheed Akanbi.
EFCC is trying Ladoja for alleged complicity in N4.7 billion fraud based on a petition it received against him sometime in July 2007 from the office of the Secretary to the Oyo State Government.
Justice Idris consequently adjourned till Thursday to rule on the admissibility of the petition.The EFCC had first arraigned Ladoja and Akanbi in 2008 before Justice A.R. Mohammed. But the defendants had objected to the charges against them and challenged the case over the course of seven years to the Supreme Court. The case was, however, reopened last year December before Justice Idris after the apex court dismissed the appeal by the defendants.
Ladoja’s lawyer, Mr. Bolaji Onilenla, contended that the petition was not part of the proof of evidence served on the defence by the prosecution and that admitting it would amount to the prosecution ambushing the defence.
He said the failure to frontload the petition was a violation. Onilenla contended that the petition was not part of the proof of evidence served on the defence by the prosecution and admitting it would amount to the prosecution ambushing the defence.
“With the greatest respect to the court, regrettably, we have to object to the admissibility of this document. My Lord, just as we did object to to the competence of the gentleman to testify at the last hearing, the document they intend to tender has not been served on us contrary to the provision of Section 79(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which he urged the judge not to allow.
“We submit that this provision is mandatory and fundamental. We further submit that that provision is closely tied to Section 36 (c) of the 1999 Constitution, which is to the effect that an accused person must be afforded adequate time and facility to defend himself,” Onilenla said. Akanbi’s lawyer, Mr. Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, said the prosecution’s failure to frontload the petition against Ladoja as part of proof of evidence showed that the prosecution was not serious about the case.
“Your Lordship advised them at the last adjourned date to go and file everything they need to but they didn’t do that.
“I fear that the prosecutor is quite experienced and I will go as far as saying that they knew we will object to this and it shows that they are not ready to prosecute the case,” Olumide-Fusika said.
Responding, however, the prosecutor, Mr. Festus Keyamo, insisted that the petition sought to be tendered had fulfilled all conditions required for its admissibility and urged the court to admit it.
“Strictly speaking, Section 39(1) of the ACJA does not apply to the Federal High Court. It only applies to trial by way of information. This court has summary jurisdiction in respect of federal offences. There is no mandatory provision of the law, not anywhere, that we are required to give them every single document that we intend to use. We only need to give them a summary of what we intend to use at trial. Their objection does not go to admissibility at all,” Kayamo contended.
He added that non-service of the petition on the defence counsel should not stall the case because they could ask for an adjournment to cross-examine the witness if they were not ready.
The charges against Ladoja and Akanbi border on money laundering and unlawful conversion and of funds belonging to Oyo State to their own. In one of the counts, Ladoja and Akanbi were accused of converting a sum of N1,932,940,032.48 belonging to Oyo State to their personal own, using a Guaranty Trust Bank account of a company, Heritage Apartments Limited.
The EFCC claimed that they retained the money sometime in 2007, despite their knowledge that it was proceeds of a criminal conduct. In another instance, Ladoja was accused of removing a sum of £600,000 from the state coffers in 2007 and sent it to Bimpe Ladoja, who was at the time in London.
The ex-governor was also accused of converting a sum of N42m belonging to the state to his own and subsequently used it to purchase an armoured Land Cruiser jeep. He was also accused of converting a sum of N728,600,000 and another N77,850,000 at separate times in 2007 to his own.
The EFCC claimed that Ladoja transferred the N77, 850,000 to one Bistrum Investments, which he nominated to help him purchase a property named Quarter 361, Ibadan, Oyo State.
The EFCC told the court that Ladoja and Akanbi acted contrary to sections 17(a) and18 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and were liable to be punished under sections 14(1), 16(a) (b) and 18(2) of the same Act.
