News Investigators/ Justice Slyvanius Oriji of a FCT high Court, Maitama, Abuja on Tuesday upheld objection of Abiodun Hassan on admissibility of documents being tendered against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Hassan was arraigned alongside his company, Bentworth Insurance brokers limited on alleged N26 billion fraud in a five-count charge bordering on misappropriation of funds in a suit marked FCT/HC/CR/021/2021.
He was alleged to have misappropriated N26 billion earmarked for the payment of outstanding insurance premiums and claims of deceased and incapacitated staffers of Power Holdings Company of Nigeria (PHCN).
The Prosecution Counsel, Christopher Mshelia, sought to tender the statements made by the first defendant, but EFCC via its Counsel Adeolu Salako objected to it.
Salako told the court that the first defendant (Hassan) was forced to make the statements, noting that he was detained for several days in the EFCC’s custody.
Justice Oriji then ordered for trial-within- trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statements.
Ruling on the trial-within-trial, Justice Oriji held that the prosecution failed to prove his case of claim that the first defendant made the statements voluntarily.
He held that the evidence of the prosecution before the court showed that the first defendant reported at EFCC on the 22nd of Sept. 22, 2016.
“The prosecution, which has the burden to prove all material facts to show that the first defendant made the statement voluntarily, did not adduce any credible evidence to prove that the first defendant made the statement the day he reported.
“For instance, the prosecution ought to have produced the visitor’s register to show when the first defendant reported at the EFCC.
“The court believes that the evidence of the first defendant and defence witness number two (DW2), that the first defendant reported at the EFCC on the Sept 18, 2016,’’ he stated.
He noted that the first defendant said in his evidence in the evening of the next day that Madaki Yakubu (PW1), interviewed him and started asking him questions, but he did not want to write the way Yakubu asked him to write.
Justice Oriji noted that the first defendant was taken back to cell that weekend until the following Monday.
“The court believes his evidence that on the Sept 22, 2016, he complied with the instruction of Madaki Yakubu on how to make his statement when he realised that they would not be released if he did not cooperate with them.
“The point must also be made that the prosecution did not challenge or report the evidence of the first defendant that he spent about eight days in the EFCC custody before he was released,’’ he held.
The court held that it means that the first defendant was in EFCC custody when he made his statements.
He held that where it was represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained by oppression, the court shall not close its eye.
“By Section 29 (5) of the Evidence Act, oppression includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence, whether or not amounting to torture.
“The court holds that since the first defendant was in custody of EFCC when he made his statement, on the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 26th of Sept 22, 23, 24 and 26, 2016, the statements were obtained by oppression.
“The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statements of the first defendant were not obtained in a manner contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of Evidence Act.
“In other words, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first defendant made the statements voluntarily.
“The making and taking of the statements of the first defendant sought to be tendered by the prosecution were not, recorded electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audiovisual means, as stipulated by Section 15 (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act,’’ he said.
He held that the six statements of the first defendant were not, taken in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice.
“By enacting the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the National Assembly put in place some legislative protocols in sections 15 (4) and 17 (2) for law enforcement agencies to follow when obtaining statements, especially confessional statements from suspects.
“This is to ensure that such statements are made voluntarily by suspects. The court reasons that sections 15 (4) and 17(2) of the said Act were not to be violated.”
The judge concluded by holding that the objection to the admissibility of the six extrajudicial statements of the first defendant at the EFCC is sustained.
The first defendant’s statements were rejected and marked rejected.
Subsequently, Justice Oriji adjourned until Oct. 7 for continuation of trial.
NAN
