Diezani Allison-Madueke:

Akin Kuponiyi

Justice Rilwan Aikawa,presiding over a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, south west Nigeria today admitted as exhibit, the list of beneficiaries of a sum of $115 million from the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke.

In his ruling on the objection raised by O. Ayanlaja (SAN), counsel to the former Minister of National Planning, Professor Abubakar Sulaiman, who is being tried alongside the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Kwara state, Mohammed Dele Belgore (SAN), concerning the admissibility of the list of the beneficiaries, the judge agreed with the arguments of counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) , Rotimi Oyedepo, that the prosecution has complied substantially with the provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act.

Justice Aikawa added that the fact that the document was produced by a computer through an email address of a staff in the course of carrying out an official assignment does not in any way invalidate the tendering of the list of benediciaries before the court.

According to the judge, “What the Evidence Act intends to do is to simplify and not to complicate the process of admitting documents in court.

” Any officer of the financial institution is competent to tender the document even if he is not the maker of the said document.

“The document and its attachment are one and same is admissible and can be tendered by the Prosecution Witness 1.”

However,shortly after the ruling, Belgore’s counsel, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) commenced the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, Timothy Olaobaju who confirmed before the court that he volunteered a statement to the EFCC on January 9, 2017 wherein the witness stated that he did not mention Alison-Madueke in his statement to the anti-graft agency.

But as Olaobaju was about to give further explanations as to why Alison-Madueke’s name was not mentioned in his statement, the defence lawyers promptly interjected and insisted that the further explanation was not needed.

Justice Aikawa was then urged by Shofunde to adjourn the matter so as to enable the prosecution produce the said statement made by the witness.

Consequently, the judge adjourned till May 2, 2017 for the EFCC to make available the said statement.

It would be recalled that the EFFC had notified Justice Aikawa that Alison-Madueke had questions to answer in the ongoing trial of Belgore, and the former Minister of National Planning, Professor Abubakar Sulaiman, over their involvement of N450 scam million.

Specifically, Belgore’s counsel, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) had during proceedings insisted before the judge that the list sought to be tendered emanated from the mail box of the maker.

He called the attention of Justice Aikawa to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which according to the SAN, governs documents made from computers.

According to Shofunde, “The document sought to be tendered has not met with the conditions made out in Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

“The certificate itself was not made by the witness and that makes it more yahoo, yahoo and I urge your lordship to rejection same.”

In his objection, counsel to the anti-graft agency argued that there is a certificate attached to the document sought to be tendered to authenticate same.

The EFCC lawyer said, “The document was identified by the witness as the list containing names of beneficiaries, and the transactions carried out by the financial institution.

“It is not in the spirit of Section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act, that the a certifying officer who is merely to confirm the functionality or otherwise of the devices used in printing out the document so as to come and give evidence.

“Substantially, we have complied with provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

“The certifying officer had confirmed that the document was printed in the ordinary course of business of the financial institution.

“He also certified that the list was produced by the computer owned by the financial institution.

“Throughout the period the document was printed, the computer used in printing the document was functioning properly.

“There is no contrary evidence to controvert this certification. The witness can validly tender the document he has identified