A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday admitted in evidence receipts of school fees paid to the American International School, Abuja (AISA) in favour of the children of the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
The receipts were among other documents tendered by the prosecution at the resumed hearing in the trial of the ex-governor on an N80.2 billion money laundering charge.
Prosecuting lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) tendered the documents through the third prosecution witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, who told the court that the receipts were issued in the names of four of the defendant’s children.
Ohehomon, who started his testimony on Thursday, had identified himself as an Internal Auditor with the AISA.
The witness was, during Friday’s proceedings, handed a document marked Exhibit 13P1, which he identified as a telex from the United Bank for Africa (UBA), sent by a relative of the defendant, Ali Bello, to the AISA.
He also identified other documents marked as Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4 as evidence of transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favour of the defendant’s children.
Ohehomon equally identified another document marked Exhibit 13P5 as a telex sent from Whales Oil and Gas to the AISA.
When asked to confirm if the defendant’s name was reflected on the documents, the witness said Bello’s name was cont contained in the documents.
Under cross-examination, defence lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) sought to tender a bundle of documents he claimed was a judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in relation to a suit between Ali Bello and the AISA over the school fees payment.
Pinheiro objected, thereby igniting a session of arguments that lasted a while.
The prosecuting lawyer argued that the defendant could not tender documents while the prosecution was yet to close its case.
He cited Section 232 of the Evidence Act and contended that the only kind of documents that the prosecution could tender during cross examination are previous statements in writing of a witness for the purpose of contracting or challenging his/her current testimony.
Pinheiro urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the defence failed to demonstrate that it (document) was admissible under Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
Responding, Daudu said the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.
Daudu added that once the court finds that the document is relevant, it becomes automatically admissible.
“That is what is contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“The question for your lordship is, is this document relevant and admissible in line with the provision of the Evidence Act?
“The answer has been provided by my learned brother silk for the prosecution when he referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which says that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment,” Daudu said.
The defence lawyer said the copy of the judgment of the High Court of the FCT is a public document which reflected AISA as a party in the case.
He added that as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness was the sole witness of AISA in the case that led to the judgment.
Daudu argued that the objection raised by the prosecution was speculative because it (the prosecution) did not know what the defence wants to do with the documents.
He contended that because the prosecution was not comfortable with the document cannot stop its admissibility.
After taking arguments on whether or not the judgment could be admitted, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned till May 8 for ruling and continuation of trial.