A former governor of the Plateau State, Jonah Jang, objected on Thursday to efforts by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) to tender his two private bank accounts statements in court as evidence against him.
The EFCC sued Mr Jang before Plateau High Court IV’s judge Daniel Longji for suspected fraud involving N6.2 billion allegedly committed when he ruled the North Central State between 2007 and 2015.
At Thursday’s hearing of the case, EFCC counsel Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) called his 10th prosecution witness (PW10), through whom he tried to tender some of the former governor’s accounts.
It was the second time that Mr Jang, also a former senator, contested efforts to submit documents against him, the first being when he kicked against the Secretary’s office’s submission of “highly classified documents.”
The document was said to capture the minutes of the 2014 and 2015 meetings of state security and executive council.
However, Mr Jang’s objection was voided as the judge ruled on Thursday, June 27, in favor of the anti-graft agency to resume hearing the matter.
Mr Jang, who lost the attempt to prevent the submission of the classified documents, again objected to the effort to tender his two bank accounts at First City Monument Bank plc (FCMB).
Mr Jacobs intended to submit four letters from the bank to the commission with the bank accounts provided by Kichime Gomwalk, FCMB Branch Manager, Jos.
But Mr Jang, through his lead attorney, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), informed the court that such documents could not be tendered to the court without fulfilling certain circumstances by section 90 of the Evidence Act.
“My Lord, we are objecting to the attempt to submit the document because section 90 (1e) of the Evidence Act says that before such documents can be tendered, a foundation must first be laid.
“We are saying that for the prosecution not to have complied with that provision of the law, such documents can’t be tendered or admitted in evidence.
“Even section 84 of the Evidence Act also stipulates that such documents must be certified before they could be admissible. The Supreme Court made categorical pronouncements on such matter,” Mr Ozekhome argued.
Mr Ozekhome, who was represented by Benson Igbanoi, argued further: “Details on accounts statements must be issued showing how they were printed from the computer system and well certified before any statement of account of a customer can be accepted in evidence in court.”
Also objecting, Samuel Oguntuyi, second-in-charge counsel, Yusuf Pam, told the court that the prosecutor was conscious that he could not tender such records to the tribunal under sections 83 and 84 of the Evidence Act.
Mr Oguntuyi urged the court to reject the bank statements adding that even if they were accepted, they should be marked as ‘rejected’ documents”.
“Again, the PW10 is not the originator of the documents as clearly seen on them. One Mrs. Christina Olaitan and one Mr Ahmed printed the statements, and not Gomwalk.
“Gomwalk can’t be the right person to tender the statements since he is not its originator by law. So, l wish to urge your Lordship to reject the documents,” he pleaded.
But Mr Jacobs said from the arguments of the defense counsel, they only objected to Mr Jang’s bank statements being tendered, not the four letters the FCMB wrote to EFCC.
“My Lord, section 146 of the evidence Act says that as long as a document is being tendered by an official from such an organisation, it is okay and admissible.
“Mr Gomwalk is a Branch Manager of FCMB and is, therefore, qualified to tender any document that emanated from the bank as stipulated by law.
“I hereby urge your Lordship to disregard the arguments put up by the defense counsels and admit the documents in question, as part of our evidences against the accused,” Mr Jacobs said.
After listening to all the parties ‘ arguments, Mr Longji adjourned the case for ruling and continuing the hearing to July 10 and July 11.
