Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday, rejected a request by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to ‘cross-examine’ its third witness in the ongoing trial of an alleged money laundering case against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello. 

While delivering his ruling, Justice Nwite noted that there was no provision in law that permits the court to allow the prosecution to re-examine its witness in the manner proposed by the anti-graft agency. 

This was just as the EFCC’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, during the proceedings, described the case instituted against the former governor as political.

He emphasised that he was not prosecuting a bank official, but a political figure, “one who had even aspired to contest for Presidency”.

He said this while arguments were being raised on whether the defence counsel would cross-examine the 4th witness when the prosecution concluded its examination at 2.30 p.m. or wait till the next day.

Responding, the judge said: “Political? If that is the case, then those handling political cases should prepare to take over the matter.”

On the ruling against the cross-examination of PW3 by the EFCC, the judge said: “I must agree with the learned counsel to the defendant that the EFCC can only cross-examine its witness after it has declared such witness a hostile witness.

“The argument of the learned counsel to the prosecution is misconceived. This honourable court is not shutting the prosecution from re-examining the witness, but must restrict itself to pages 1, 14 and 15 of Exhibit 19, where issues were addressed by the defence. 

“The prosecution is not allowed to re-examine the witness outside the pages prescribed.”

An internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, Nicholas Ojehomon, had, at the last hearing, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local councils in the state to the account of the American school.

On cross-examination, he also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court judgment that said there was no court order for AISA to return fees to the EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.

After a brief reexamination and the withdrawal of an earlier question posed to the witness, the EFCC lawyer told the court that the Commission had three other witnesses for the day.