A former Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), Ahmed Idris, through his lawyer, kicked against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) tendering the video recording of the interview session operatives had with him and others when the prosecution sought to tender the video in court on Thursday.
The compact disc containing the video was tendered by the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs SAN, through the prosecution’s first witness (PW1) in the trial-within-trial in the ongoing trial of Idris and three others for alleged fraud.
The trial-within-trial was ordered by the court following the objection raised by counsel for Idris, Chief Chris Uche SAN on the ground that his client’s statements the prosecution sought to tender on November 23, 2022, were not made on the ground of deception and inducement.
The former Accountant-General of the Federation alongside Geoffrey Olusegun Akindele, Mohammed Kudu Usman, and Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited, are standing trial on a 14-count charge bordering on stealing, fraudulent diversion of public funds to the tune of N109.5 billion.
They were brought before Justice Yusuf Halilu,
sitting at Maitama, Abuja, by EFCC, on behalf of the Federal Government in the case marked, CR/199/2022.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, the EFCC witness, Hayatudeen Sulaiman Ahmed, told the court that Idris’s statements were not obtained through deception.
He informed that the investigating team recorded the interview session it had with Idris, Akindele, and Usman, which was later burnt on a compact disc.
When the prosecutor sought to tender the video recording, Idris’s counsel vehemently opposed its tendering, saying that it amounted to ambush of the defence.
“We vehemently oppose to the strategy of springing this video on the defendants. The witness said the video was recorded on 25th May, 2022, almost three years ago.
“By constitutional provision, the defendants ought to have been served this to enable them prepare their defence,” the senior advocate said.
He added that he was only served the video on Wednesday evening and was not able to view it before coming to court.
Counsels for other defendants aligned their objections with Uche’s with counsel for Akindele Joe Abraham SAN, describing it as “a strange bird from a whirlwind”.
Despite the objections, Justice Halulu ruled against the defendants and admitted the video, which was marked as an exhibit in the trial-with-trial, following which it was played in the open court.
According to him, the video was made after investigation established that the first to third defendants benefitted from non-existent consultancy from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation at the time Idris was the AGF.
Under cross-examination by Uche, the witness said lawyers of the three defendants were not present when investigators interviewed them on May 25, 2022.
He admitted that Idris made some of his statements to EFCC in the absence of his lawyer, one Gbenga Adeyemi, while some were made in the presence of the lawyer.
The witness further admitted that apart from the interview session with the three defendants that was recorded, there were no video recordings of other statements made by Idris.
According to him, “There are no videos for other statements made by the first defendant (Idris), there were only witnesses.
“We don’t bring suspects together in taking their statements; it’s only done for interview. We didn’t tell them we were recording the video. There was no lawyer for any of the defendants during the recording of the video.”
He further told the court that the video clip played in court did not capture everything that happened during the interview session, which he said could be more than one hour.
Ahmed told the court that he could not remember how many statements the first defendant made to EFCC, though he was involved in taking the statements.
Meanwhile, while adjourning the trial with trial to March 20, Justice Halilu set aside the court’s order revoking the bail granted to Akindele.
This followed an application made to that effect by counsel for Akindele, Joe Abraham SAN, informing the court that the second defendant was not in court at the last sitting as of the time the case was called because he was held up in traffic but eventually made it to court that day.
The prosecutor was, however, not against the application.