The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 tendered a myriad of documentary evidence before Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to further establish its claim on how the former Jigawa governor, Sule Lamido and his cohorts defrauded the State.
Lamido is being prosecuted alongside his two sons: Aminu and Mustapha and two others on a 27-count charge bordering on abuse of office and money laundering.
The other two on trial are; Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Limited.
With prosecution witness, PW 18, Micheal Wetkas, in the witness box, counsel to EFCC, Chile Okoroma, presented bank payment vouchers of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Ltd, invoices of Bamaina Company Ltd, waybills/delivery notes of Bamaina Company Ltd, copies of cheques of millions of naira from various banks, in favour of Bamaina Company Ltd.
The documents were admitted as Exhibits EFCC 112(a-b), EFCC 113 (a-f), EFCC 113 (a-g), EFCC 114(a-e), EFCC 115(a-f), EFCC 116 (a-f), EFCC 117(a-g), EFCC 118(a-e), EFCC 119(a-g), EFCC 120(a-j), EFCC 121(a-g), EFCC 122(a-g), EFCC 123(a-f), EFCC 124(a-g), EFCC 125(a-g), EFCC 126(a-h), EFCC 127 (a-f) and EFCC 128(a-g). These represent documentation for sub-contracts allegedly carried out by Bamaina Holdings Ltd for Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company.
Justice Ademola, observed that, if the documents speak for itself, there was no reason for individual admission of each document in the open court as it was a painstaking process. He said that the witness’ preliminary evidence laid the basis for their admissibility and requested that the prosecution make all the documentary evidence available to the defence for review in order to facilitate speedy progress on the case.
Responding, Chile Okoroma stated that the defense had insisted on individual admission of evidence, at a previous sitting, so that exhibit numbers would be assigned and context of the evidence would be established.
Defense counsel, Joe Agbi, SAN, earlier represented by Offiong Effiong Bassey Offiong, SAN, had complained that the documents were arranged in no particular order, and had to be front loaded by the prosecutor before being admitted in evidence.
Documents further admitted in evidence were; a letter of proposal for supply of consumables to Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Ltd from Speeds International Ltd, bank payment vouchers of Dantata and Sawoe Construction Company Ltd, invoices of Speeds
International Ltd, waybills/delivery notes of Speeds International Ltd, copies of cheques of millions of naira from various banks, in favour of Speeds International Ltd. The documents were admitted as Exhibits EFCC 129, EFCC 130(a-f), EFCC 131(a-f), EFCC 132(a-f), EFCC 133(a-f), EFCC 134(a-f), EFCC 135(a-f), EFCC 136(a-f), EFCC 137(a-f), EFCC 138(a-f), EFCC 139(a-f), EFCC 140(a-f), EFCC 141(a-f), EFCC 142(a-f), EFCC 143(a-f), EFCC 144(a-f), EFCC 145(a-f), EFCC 146(a-d), EFCC 147(a-f), EFCC 148(a-f), EFCC 149(a-f) and EFCC 150(a-f).
Realizing that further admission of documentary evidence in this manner was indeed strenuous, counsel agreed to sort through further documentary evidence and admit them in bulk.
