N3.2b Fraud: Court Rules That Witness cannot Give Opinion Evidence Against Orji Kalu
Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court Lagos, yesterday ruled that a witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Romanus Madu is not competent to give opinion evidence in the ongoing trial of former Abia State Governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu.
Justice Idris, who gave the verdict while ruing on an objection raised by Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN) against the evidence of the witness, held that Madu cannot compare handwriting evidence on two different documents, and then give opinion on same.
The former governor, his Commissioner for Finance, Udeogu, and his company, Slok Nigeria Limited are being tried before the Court, by anti-graft agency on an amended 34 count charge of N3.2 billion fraud.
They were alleged to have used the following banks to perpetrate the alleged fraud, Manny Bank, Spring Bank Plc,( now Heritage Bank), the defunct Standard Trust Bank, now United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) and Fin Land Bank, now First City Monument Bank (FCMB).
They however all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
It will be recalled that during Monday’s proceedings, the EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) while leading fourth witness, in evidence in chief tried to tender some documents relating to the case.
Madu, who is a permanent Secretary in the government house of Abia State had testified that he did not author a statement requesting for the sum of N30.8 million bank draft in the course of his duties as a cashier in the Abia State House in 2005.
He had identified his name on the document, but said that he was not the person who wrote it, adding that his signature was not absent.
But an attempt by the prosecutor to ask the witness to do a comparison of signatures on the documents to determine if they were his, was objected to by the defence.
Defence counsel had objected on the grounds that the practice was contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Idris held that the sole question was as to whether a witness can give opinion evidence.
The judge cited the provisions of sections 67, 68 and 70 of the Evidence Act, the court held that expert opinion of handwriting is an integral part of the law governing evidence.
He noted, “Although the court can compare hand writings, but same can only arise when in issue.
“In all, I find that PW4 cannot give opinion evidence as to the document in question.
“Where the issue is whether the handwriting is for PW4 or not, it is my opinion that the witness cannot give evidence on that.
“The witness cannot compare handwriting on two different documents, and then give opinion on same.
“In the light of the above, the objection raised by learned counsel is hereby sustained.”
In continuation of his evidence in chief, the witness was shown exhibit B6 which is an account statement of the Abia State government house, and asked to comment on a transaction of Aug. 22, 2005.
The witness told the court that on the said date, he made cash withdrawals of N15 million and N25million, adding that the sums were handed over to his boss, Udeogo.
During cross examination by defence counsel, the witness told the court that he joined the civil service in 1981, adding that his appointment was civil and not political.
Defence counsel then asked: “you joined the civil service in 1981 and ought to have retired in 2016, so what happened?”
In response, the witness told the court that he was granted an extension of office by the governor of Abia state.
Again, defence counsel asked: “when you were a cashier in the payroll, does your schedule of duty include cashing cheques?”
The witness replied “No” Justice Idris has adjourned until June 7 today for continuation of trial.