Counsel for the former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, and that of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Kemi Pinheiro, clashed on Friday over the cross-examination of the EFCC’s witness.

Bello is facing 19 counts of money laundering amounting to N80.2bn, brought against him by the EFCC.

At the resumed trial of the case before Justice Emeka Nwite of an Abuja Federal High Court, Bello’s lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, argued that the EFCC must declare its witness hostile before attempting cross-examination, as required by law.

Pinheiro had sought to cross-examine an internal auditor at American International School Abuja, Nicholas Ojehomon, regarding a judgment admitted earlier by the court.

The court had on Thursday admitted into evidence a judgment from the Federal Capital Territory High Court concerning the payment of school fees by the Bello family to the American International School Abuja.

The civil case, marked FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023, involved Ali Bello, the Kogi State Chief of Staff and nephew to the former governor, and the Incorporated Trustees of AISA.

While the EFCC opposed the admissibility of the document, citing procedural grounds, the court ruled that admissibility was based solely on relevance, describing the EFCC’s objection as “preemptive” and contrary to principles of substantial justice.

Pinheiro said he needed to cross-examine the witness due to the document’s relevance.

However, Daudu objected, stating, “If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you must first declare them hostile. You cannot cross-examine them based on this document without doing so.”

Pinheiro countered, citing Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing. “Fair hearing demands that the complainant, too has the right to examine this document,” he said.

However, Justice Nwite asked for legal backing to support Pinheiro’s position.

While the EFCC counsel referenced fair hearing provisions, Daudu insisted that cross-examination of a party’s own witness without declaring hostility was “unknown to law.”

The court, however, allowed Pinheiro to proceed with re-examination but cautioned him not to frame questions resembling cross-examination.

However, when the prosecution lawyer proceeded to re-examine the witness and his questions pointed at cross-examination, as observed by the defendant’s counsel, the judge insisted that the parties had to address him on the specific issues.

Daudu, in his address, said, “The procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by referring the witness to the document tendered in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence-in-chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act.”

But Pinheiro disagreed, stating that when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team submitted that it was not made by the witness and, as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross-examination or be confronted with it.

“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross-examination of PW-3, Your Lordship should not allow them to shut us out, as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” Pinheiro said.

However, when further ambiguities arose, the judge directed both parties to present detailed arguments on the issue and adjourned the case to June 26, 27, and July 4, 5, for ruling and continuation of the trial.