Yahaya Bello: Court To Rule On EFCC’s Request To Cross-examine Own Witness June 26

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed June 26 for ruling in the application brought by the EFCC to cross-examine its own witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, in the alleged money laundering case against a former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

The court fixed the date after taking arguments from parties on the necessity or otherwise of the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness after the cross-examination by Bello’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Daudu (SAN).

Disagreement arose when Daudu vehemently objected the mode of cross-examining the witness after cross-examination by the defence.
He told Justice Nwite that the only option open to the EFCC was to re-examine the witness as required by law and not to cross-examine the witness.

The senior lawyer argued that for the EFCC to lawfully cross-examine the witness, the agency must first declare such witness hostile.

When the matter was called for continuation of cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to the American International School in Abuja, and he said yes.

RELATED

Gov Sani Donates Vehicles To Federal Varsity Kachia

1 hour ago

Court Remands TikToker, 1 Other Over Alleged Libel Against Late Mohbad’s Wife

2 hours ago

But the witness, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not mention the exact courts.

He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former governor Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

After Daudu concluded the cross-examination of the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan (SAN), moved to also cross-examine the same witness on Exhibit 19, a judgment copy of the High Court of the FCT.

He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence from the bar during cross-examination by the defense.