THE Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Monday listened to the evidence of the 13th prosecution witness in the trial of the former Governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose, for an alleged N6.9bn fraud and money laundering.
The witness, a former operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Abubakar Madaki, told Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke that Fayose, did not personally make any of the financial transactions relevant to the charge before the court.
Fayose and his company, Spotless Investment Ltd, are being prosecuted by the EFCC, before the court, on an 11 counts.
At the last date of April 25, 2024, the proceedings were stalled owing to the absence of Justice Aneke who was said to be away an official assignment and the case was subsequently adjourned till today, July 1 for the continuation of trial.
At the resumed trial on Monday, the prosecutor, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) called on the witness (Madaki), to enter the witness box in continuation of his cross-examination.
Under cross-examination, the second defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), called for exhibit D12, and asked the witness to look through and confirm to the court if there was any transaction relevant to the charge which was personally made by the first defendant.
In response, the witness replied: ‘There is none.”
The defence counsel also asked the witness if he recalled telling the court that he did not witness any of the transactions in the case. The witness replied, “I only said it was in the course of investigation.”
On whether he acted based on facts in his investigation, the witness replied, “Yes, very well my lord.”
When further asked if the facts were made available to him by persons who saw or participated in the transactions, the witness replied, “Yes, in the course of investigations.”
The defence counsel then asked the witness whether all conclusions tendered or made available to the court including the investigations made in respect to the charge took their root from facts which he was either told or read.
In response, the witness replied “Yes, including documents recovered in the course of investigations.”
When the defence counsel asked the witness if he remembered the name “Erukaa” and whether a statement was taken from the named person, the witness replied in the affirmative, stressing that the statement was also obtained from him in the course of investigation.
When defence counsel asked the witness to confirm if the said Erukaa was in Abuja on the same day another prosecution witness, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, had claimed he was in Abuja, the prosecution counsel raised an objection on the grounds that the witness could not be made to give evidence on an extra judicial statement of a dead man which was merely tendered.
The late Justin Erukaa, who is not a listed party in the case, was a Special Assistant to Fmr Governor, Fayose.
In relation to questions on whether Fayose acknowledged receipt of any amount of dollars from Obanikoro, the witness replied that there was no document of any acknowledgement.
Under further cross-examination by the first defence counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr Ola Olanipekun, the witness was asked to confirm his earlier evidence that the sum of N4.6 billion was transferred by the then National Security Adviser (NSA) to one Sivan Macnamara.
In response the witness said,” Yes.”
On how the transfer was done, the witness told the court that it was transferred from the office of the National Security Adviser from its impress account to the Diamond Bank account of Sivan Madnamara.
Defence counsel then said: “You said payment was made from the NSA to Sivan Madnamara and that part of the money was meant to be transferred to the first defendant.
“I never said transfer, I said it was meant for the first defendant,” said the witness.
The defence counsel asked if he had investigated why a transfer was not made to the first defendant if actually the funds were meant for him.
The witness replied: “Questions were asked and investigations showed that it was meant to disguise the source of the money; so, it was given by cash to avoid traces.”
On whether he had confirmed if the funds were proceeds of drugs, the witness replied that the money was not proceeds of drugs.
Justice Aneke has adjourned continuation of trial to July 19.