Justice Tijani Ringim of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos has ordered a trial- within- trial in the alleged N304.1million fraud trial involving a former acting Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, (NIMASA), Haruna Baba Jauro, and two others.
This is contained in a Statement by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. Jauro alongside Dauda Bitrus Bawa and a company, Thlumbau Enterprises Limited is being prosecuted on a 19-count charge bordering on stealing and money laundering to the tune of three hundred and four million one hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred Naira.
At the proceedings, the third prosecution witness, Orji Chukwuma, an investigator with the EFCC, in his further evidence, told the court that both the first and second defendants were invited to the EFCC office and that the first defendant had interactions with the investigating team in his office.
Counsel to the defendants, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, objected to the attestations by the first defendant on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of the Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act.
According to him, “The statements were not made voluntarily. It was induced and made under oppressive conducts of the first defendant.”
He, therefore, prayed the court to direct a trial-within trial, in order to determine the issue of admissibility raised in respect of the first defendant.
The prosecution counsel replied to the objection raised and told the court that the defence did not explain how the first defendant was oppressed and how the statement was taken under “oppressive conduct.”
He, therefore, submitted that the said objection did not exist and that the Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act relied on by the defence does not provide for any of such objection.
In his response to the claim of inducement of the first defendant, Mohammed said no part of the Section shows that.
Mohammed, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the objection and treat them as “mere words, as the objection does not fall within Section 29 (2) of the Evidence Act.”
While explaining his claim of “oppressive conductCourt Orders Trial-Within-Trial in fraud case involving ex-NIMASA DG, two others
Justice Tijani Ringim of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos has ordered a trial- within- trial in the alleged N304.1million fraud trial involving a former acting Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, (NIMASA), Haruna Baba Jauro, and two others.
This is contained in a Statement by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. Jauro alongside Dauda Bitrus Bawa and a company, Thlumbau Enterprises Limited is being prosecuted on a 19-count charge bordering on stealing and money laundering to the tune of three hundred and four million one hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred Naira.
At the proceedings, the third prosecution witness, Orji Chukwuma, an investigator with the EFCC, in his further evidence, told the court that both the first and second defendants were invited to the EFCC office and that the first defendant had interactions with the investigating team in his office.
Counsel to the defendants, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, objected to the attestations by the first defendant on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of the Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act.
According to him, “The statements were not made voluntarily. It was induced and made under oppressive conducts of the first defendant.”
He, therefore, prayed the court to direct a trial-within trial, in order to determine the issue of admissibility raised in respect of the first defendant.
The prosecution counsel replied to the objection raised and told the court that the defence did not explain how the first defendant was oppressed and how the statement was taken under “oppressive conduct.”
He, therefore, submitted that the said objection did not exist and that the Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act relied on by the defence does not provide for any of such objection.
In his response to the claim of inducement of the first defendant, Mohammed said no part of the Section shows that.
Mohammed, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the objection and treat them as “mere words, as the objection does not fall within Section 29 (2) of the Evidence Act.”
While explaining his claim of “oppressive conduct” Ojo said: “it is within the trial- within- trial that evidence will be led.
Justice Ringim ruled in favour of the defence and ordered a trial- within- trial.
The case was adjourned to June 19 and 20, 2023 for continuation of trial.” Ojo said: “it is within the trial- within- trial that evidence will be led.
Justice Ringim ruled in favour of the defence and ordered a trial- within- trial.
The case was adjourned to June 19 and 20, 2023 for continuation of trial.
