 |
Jang vs EFCC: Court
reserves ruling for tomorrow on admissibility of evidence
By Dickson Gupiya
December, 04, 2018.
Hearing
into the case of alleged misappropriation of N6.3billion by Jonah David Jang the
former governor of Plateau state between 2007 and 2015, and Yusuf Pam a former
cashier in the office of the Secretary to Plateau state government (SSG)
continued today with prosecution counsel calling on PW3, Mr Emmanuel Kpanja, an
Assistant Manager with Zenith Bank Plc Jos branch.
PW3 told the court that as a Marketer, he was
aware of an account named secretary to the State government cabinet and special
services account opened in 2007. The witnessed said he knew Yusuf Pam (2nd
accused), as the cashier in SSG office.
“I know the 2nd accused as the cashier
who comes to withdraw from the account. Also, most correspondents in respect of
the account was handled by the 2nd accused”.
The witness stated that he was aware of EFCC’s
call to his organisation to supply details of that account. He added that apart
from that account, the 2nd accused also had a personal savings
account with the bank but that he was not aware if EFCC equally made
requirement of his personal account.
Witness was shown one of the letters from the bank
by the prosecution counsel Rotimi Jacobs SAN who also sought to tender same through the witness but
counsel 1st accused, Mike Ozokhome SAN objected to the admissibility of
the document arguing that no foundation howsoever was laid by prosecution as to
why PW3 is the one tendering the document. According to counsel, “In his
testimony, witness specifically told my Lord that the EFCC requested for the
account. On the face of the document itself, PW3 does and is not a signatory to
Zenith Bank Letter written on 15th October, 2015 which the
prosecution intends to tender through him. The signatories are; John Olundare
and Abiodun Durokimi all of compliance department. In his evidence in chief,
Pw3 told this honourable Court that he was a marketer and not a complaint
officer or in the complaint department. So tendering this document and its
attachments which are computer generated evidence without the necessary attestation
or certification is a direct assault on section 83 and 84 of the evidence Act”
 |
| Mike Ozokhome, SAN (r) and Rotimi Jacobs in court today |
Counsel further cited Supreme Court decision in
the case between Okereke Vs Umuanhi 2016 LPLER 400, 35 stressing that it is the
author of a document in a matter such as the one under reference that needs to
tender it so he can be able to answer questions from the document.
“It is clear from the testimony of PW3 that he was
a marketer and not a complaint officer. Whatever evidence he wants to give as
far as the letter is concerned is hearsay evidence. I must respectfully urge my
Lord to reject this document. However, in the most unlikely event that my Lord would
want to admit this document, we urge my lord not to attach any weight to it”.
In his submission, S.D. Odey counsel to 2nd
accused also objected vehemently to the admissibility of the letter for the
same reasons advanced by counsel to 1st accused and added that a
person qualifies to be a maker of a document if he is capable of taking
responsibility for its contents. Counsel cited Supreme Court judgment in the
case between Arab Contractors Nig. Ltd against Gillian Umanah, NWLR 2018 part
13445 at pages 346 - 347. “We submit with due respect that the document cannot
be tendered through PW3. We also urge that the document be rejected and marked
as rejected” said counsel.
In his response, prosecution counsel said that the
objection by counsels to the accused shows that they did not clearly follow the
witness. “The witness clearly said he is the account officer of the account of
SSG cabinet and special services. He also gave evidence that the 2nd
accused was relating with him with regards to withdrawals and correspondents.
My lord, if an account officer cannot give evidence in an account he manages in
a bank, then who can?”
 |
| Senator Jang and Yusuf Pam in court today |
Counsel further stated that any official of a bank
is qualified to give evidence irrespective of whether he was involved in the
transaction or not citing Supreme Court decisions on cases of Kate Enterprisers
Ltd and Devn Nig. Ltd NWLR 1985 part 2 page 116; Sola vs Societe General Bank,
NWLR 1987 part 488 page 405 at page 424; Interdrill Nig. Ltd Vs UBA Plc 2017
NWLR part 81 and 82. In the light of the above, counsel urged the Court to
reject the submissions made by counsels to the accused and admit the document.
In their short replies, counsels to the accused
said that the cases cited by the prosecution are not applicable to the current
situation and raised a question on the where about of the maker of the
document. “The question is where is the maker of this document? Is he dead?
Section 83 of the Evidence Act says except the maker of a document is dead, no
one should take responsibility of his document. We urge the court to consider
this as useful in deciding this issue”. Both counsels maintained their position
that the document be rejected.
Justice Daniel Longji reserved ruling till
Wednesday 5th of December, 2018.
Post a Comment