The Code of Conduct
Tribunal in Abuja on Wednesday discharged and acquitted the Senate President,
Dr. Bulola Saraki, of all the 18 charges of false asset declaration and other
related offences preferred against him.
The two-man panel of
the CCT led by its Chairman, Danladi Umar, unanimously upheld the no-case
submission which Saraki filed after the prosecution closed its case with 48 exhibits tendered and the fourth and the
last prosecution witness testified on May 4, 2017.
Umar, in his lead
ruling, exonerated Saraki of all the charges on, among other grounds, the
failure of the prosecution to obtain Saraki’s statement and make it part of the
proof of evidence was fatal to the case.
He described as
“absurd” that neither Saraki’s statement nor the report of investigation said
to have been carried out was produced before the tribunal.
He agreed with the
defence team led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN),
that the prosecution’s evidence had been manifestly discredited during
cross-examination by the defence.
He added that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution led by Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) was “so
unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict” based on it.
The court erupted in
thunderous jubilation among the lawyers and supporters of the Senate President
as soon as the tribunal made the pronouncement exonerating him on Wednesday.
While the lead defence
counsel, Agabi, thanked the tribunal for the ruling, the counsel who led the
prosecution team on Wednesday, Mr. Pius Akutah, told journalists that the
prosecution would review the ruling “in
order to determine the next step”.
The charges instituted
against Saraki before the CCT related to the alleged breaches of the code of
conduct for public officers, acts which were said to be punishable under the
Constitution and the CCB/CCT Act.
He allegedly committed
the breaches by making false declaration of his assets while being governor of
Kwara State between 2003 and 2007 for his first term and between 2007 and 2011
for his second term as governor and from 2011 to 2015 as senator.
Among the breaches were
that he obtained N375m loan from Guaranty Trust Bank Plc in 2010, converted it
to £1,515,194.53 and transferred to the United Kingdom for full and final
mortgage payment for a London property.
Additional charges
against him included the allegation that he continued to receive salary and emoluments
as Governor of Kwara State after the expiration of his tenure and at the same
time, from the Federal Government as a senator between June 2011 and October
2013.
He was also said to
have failed to declare to the Code of Conduct Bureau on assumption of office as
Governor of Kwara State in 2003, his leasehold interest leasehold in the
property at 42, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, Ikeja, Lagos.
The charges also
included the allegation that Saraki failed to make a written declaration of his
“properties and assets”, that is, N77m made into his account with Guaranty
Trust Bank, GRA, Ilorin branch on September 5, 2007.
The prosecution alleged
that the sum of N77m was not fairly attributable to his “income, gifts or loan
approved by the Code of Conduct for Public Officers”.
The prosecution also
alleged that while being a public officer, operated bank accounts outside
Nigeria, and failed to declare the foreign accounts to the Code of Conduct
Bureau while being governor and a senator during the period.
Properties that were
allegedly falsely declared by Saraki included 17, 17A and 17B Mcdonald, Ikoyi,
Lagos; Plot 2A, Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos; 37A, Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos which
he allegedly bought through Carlisle Properties; No. 1 and 3 Targus Street,
Maitama, Abuja, otherwise known as 2482, Cadastral Zone A06, Abuja.
The Supreme Court had
on February 5, 2016, dismissed Saraki’s objection challenging his trial before
the CCT.
In his contribution to
the ruling of the tribunal on Wednesday, co-member of the tribunal, Atedze
Agwaza, who expatiated on the decision of the tribunal to free Saraki, noted
that the Senate President was investigated by an illegal team comprising officials
of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and
the Department of State Service.
He noted that such
investigative team was strange to both the Constitution and the CCB/CCT Act
under which Saraki was charged.
He also rejected the
entire evidence of the prosecution on the basis that the evidence of the third
prosecution witness, Mr. Samuel Madojemu, the Head, Intelligence Unit of the
CCB, was nothing but hearsay.
Agwaza specifically
noted that Madojemu’s affidavit evidence, which formed the foundation of the
charges filed, was based on hearsay evidence.
Agwaza noted that
Madojemu was CCB’s Chief Investigator,
adding that the witness’ hearsay evidence was, therefore, an affliction which
rendered the entire evidence of the prosecution invalid.
He said, “The
formulation of the 18 counts against the defendant is predicated on the
affidavit of PW3, Mr. Samuel Madojemu,
who is the Chief Investigator at the Code of Conduct Bureau. The
affidavit was filed as part of proof of evidence in support of the
prosecution’s case.
“Affidavit-evidence is
evidence nonetheless. By his testimony, PW3 said, and I quote, ‘details of the
outcome of the investigation as highlighted in the affidavit by me were part of
information given to me members of the team’.
“I find and hold that
this apposite testimony is an affliction and epidemic that bedevilled the
entire prosecution’s case and that particular evidence has rendered the who
evidence of the prosecution invalid.
“It connotes that PW3
had no first-hand knowledge of all he said and the documents tendered. This is
hearsay evidence and violates sections 37, 38 and 126 of the Evidence Act 2011.
“The affidavit evidence
of PW3 is manifestly inadmissible in law and, so I hold.”
On the alleged illegality
of team that conducted the investigation of the case against Saraki , Agwaza
ruled, “The term team so constituted is unknown in law and never contemplated
by the CCB/CCT Act under which the defendant is being tried.
“The said team is made
up the CCB, DSS and EFCC. This team has no constitutional backing or statutory
backing.”
He said the combined
effect of the illegality of the investigative team and the inadmissible
evidence of the prosecution was that “the charge is incurably defective” and
amounted to a miscarriage of justice suffered by the defendant.
He added, “Hearsay
evidence according to a plethora of judicial authorities is not admissible for
the purposes of establishing criminal liability. See the case of Buhari Vs
Obasanjo (2005) All NWLR Pt 273 pg1.
“It is trite law that
the evidence required to establish a crime is the evidence of witness, who saw
or had or took part in the transaction upon which he is giving evidence.”
He also described as a
fatal error on the part of the prosecution, its failure to obtain the statement
of the defendant and include it in the proof of evidence filed before the
tribunal.
Agwaza said, “Another
fatal error is that the prosecution did not obtain the statement of the
defendant to make it part of its proof of evidence in this case.
“Indeed the response to
a petition is the foundation of defence. This is perhaps the only initial
document that will now show or establish
fairness in the process.”
He added that the
statement made by the defendant to the EFCC was admitted as Exhibit 45 through
oral evidence that had been ruled to be inadmissible.
“Failure to have, keep
and make it part of proof of evidence is fatal. Even Exhibit 45 was tendered and
admitted in evidence without admissible oral evidence by a person who can
explain the purport makes it bereft of probative value,” the tribunal member
ruled.
He also noted that the
prosecution also chose to tender the Certified True Copies of the Asset
Declaration Forms of Saraki instead of the original copies which were available
in the prosecution’s custody.
He stated that the
failure of the prosecution to tender the original copies of the documents
marked Exhibits 1 to 6, 26 and 46, was
detrimental to the case of the prosecution” as “the original copy of a document
is superior”.
He also agreed with the
defence that prosecution failed to call some vital witnesses, a development
which he said was detrimental to the case.
The tribunal member
said, “For example, if you say the defendant was collecting salaries from the
Kwara State Government and at the same time from the Senate, why was the
Accountant-General of Kwara State not summoned to come and testify?
“The witnesses would
have helped the tribunal tremendously in casting much light on the alleged
offences.
“The failure has led to
the failure of providing evidence linking the defendant to the commission of
the offences with which he is charged.”
Agwaza maintained that
going by section 36(5) of the Constitution, a defendant was presumed innocent
and that the said defendant was not expected to prove his or her innocence.
He added that the
prosecution having failed to link the Senate President to the offences charged,
there was no reason to call on the defendant to enter his defence.
Agwaza said, “The
burden of proof is not upon the defendant to prove his innocent. It will be
fundamentally erroneous for this tribunal to call upon the defendant to prove
his innocence.
“On this account, the
prosecution had failed to link the defendant to the commission of the offences
as charged.”
He added, “Based on
this analysis, it is my humble contention
that the defendant has no case whatsoever to answer and he is
accordingly discharged and acquitted.”
Earlier, the tribunal
chairman specifically noted that the third prosecution witness, Mr. Samuel
Madojemu, who is Head, Intelligence Unit of the CCB, only gave hearsay evidence
on the information the witness purportedly received from the EFCC.
Umar also noted that
the evidence of the first prosecution witness, Mr. Michael Wetkas, an operative
of the EFCC, was unreliable.
Concerning the evidence
of second prosecution witness, Mr. Amazi Nwachuckwu , Head of Funds Transfer Unit of the Guaranty
Trust Bank, Umar noted that witness had testified that documents relating to
alleged foreign transfers by Saraki had been consumed in a fire incident so
there was nothing to prove the charges that were based on the documents.
The tribunal chairman
also noted none of the four witnesses, including Mr. Bayo Dauda, an official of
Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, Ilorin branch in Kwara State, who testified as the fourth witness, gave
evidence that could prove any of the ingredients of the alleged offences.
Credit: Punch
Newspapers
Comments
Post a Comment