Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was, yesterday, shifted to April 18, 2017, after he failed to stop re-examination of the prosecution witness from the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Mr. Samuel Madojemu in the 13-count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.
Saraki is standing trial over allegations bordering on false and improper declaration of assets allegedly acquired during his tenure as governor of Kwara State from 2003-2011.
When the matter came up, yesterday, government’s counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) asked Madojemu, under re-examination, to clarify his evidence under cross-examination that contradicts what was said in his evidence in chief as well as cross-examination.
Rotimi specifically asked Madojemu, who is CCB’s head of Intelligence and Investigation Unit to explain what he meant that the column in the form prepared by the CCB for assets declaration does not include mortgage, debit card, credit card, cash lodgment.
Upon asking the question, Paul Erokoro (SAN), who led the Senate President’s defence team objected to the line of questioning, and added that, “the witness cannot be asked to explain, to add to, to contradict or to vary the content of CCB 1 (the assets declaration form).
He said the CCB 1 prepared by the Bureau amounts to official proceedings being reduced to a form of evidence as contained in Section 128 (1) of the Evidence Ac and added that the wording in the asset declaration form of the defendant, which was tendered as exhibit is clear and unambiguous.
Erokoro then asked the Tribunal to stop the prosecution from the line of re-examination.
In his submissions, Jacobs urged the Tribunal to ignore the objection, adding that the question he asked the witness has to do with the evidence he gave in his evidence in chief and cross examination.
Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, in his ruling over-ruled the objection of the defence counsel and asked the prosecution to continue with his question to the witness.which he noted do not fall within the purview of Section 128 of the Evidence Act.
He said the question is not intended to vary or amend the content of any document and that Section 128 of the Evidence Act is not an inhibition to the prosecution as the prosecution is entitled to ask question to clear any contradiction to the evidence given during cross examination.
Rotimi said there are even exceptions to Section 128, which he noted allows oral evidence where issues of crime, fraud, illegality and intimidation are involved.
Chairman of the Tribunal, in his ruling over-ruled the objection of the defence counsel and asked the prosecution to continue with his question to the witness.
