Ahmed Idris, a former AGF accountant general, objected on Thursday in the FCT High Court to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) submitting a video clip of an interview that agents conducted with him and other individuals.
Read Also: Asisat Oshoala highlights three benefits of her move from Barcelona to Bay FC
In the trial-within-trial of Idris and three other defendants for alleged fraud, the prosecuting attorney, Rotimi Jacobs, produced the compact disc containing the footage through the first prosecution witness (PW1).
The court granted the trial-within-trial in response to an objection made by Idris’s attorney, Chris Uche.
The objection was based on the fact that his client had used inducement and fraud to make the statements that the prosecution was attempting to tender on November 23, 2022.
Idris Ahmed, Geoffrey Olusegun Akindele, Mohammed Kudu Usman, and Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited are all on trial for a total of 14 counts related to theft and fraudulent diversion of N109.5 billion in public funds.
In the case designated CR/199/2022, they were presented before Justice Yusuf Halilu by the Federal Government through the EFCC.
However, the defendants entered a not guilty plea to the accusations that were brought against them.
Idris’s comments were not gained via trickery, according to EFCC witness Hayatudeen Sulaiman Ahmed, who testified before the court during the matter’s resumed hearing.
According to him, the interview that the investigative team conducted with Idris, Akindele, and Usman was taped and thereafter burned into a compact disc.
Idris’s attorney objected to the prosecution’s attempt to offer the video tape, claiming that doing so would be like ambushing the defence.
“We strongly disagree with the tactic of revealing this footage to the accused individuals. According to the witness, the video was shot on May 25, 2022—nearly three years ago.
According to a constitutional clause, the accused were supposed to get this so they could prepare a defence, according to Uche.
He continued by saying that he was unable to watch the footage before to appearing in court because it was only handed to him on Wednesday night.
Other defendants’ attorneys sided with Uche’s arguments, characterising it as “a strange bird from a whirlwind” in their correspondence with Akindele’s attorney, Joe Abraham SAN.
Judge Halilu overruled the defendants’ objections and admitted the film, marking it as an exhibit in the trial-within-trial before playing it in front of the public.
Halilu claims that the film was produced after an inquiry revealed that, during Idris’s tenure as AGF, the first through third defendants had benefited from nonexistent consulting from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
The witness claimed during Uche’s cross-examination that the three defendants’ solicitors weren’t present when the investigators examined them on May 25, 2022.
He acknowledged that while Idris made some of his statements to the EFCC with his lawyer, Gbenga Adeyemi, present, others were made without the lawyer’s presence.
The witness added acknowledged that no further statements made by Idris were captured on camera, with the exception of the videotaped interview with the three defendants.
“No additional statements made by the first defendant, Idris, are available on video. We have eyewitnesses.
“We don’t gather suspects to get statements from them. They were unaware that we were filming the footage. During the video’s recording, none of the defendants had an attorney present.
He also informed the court that not all of the interview, which he estimated to last more than an hour, was captured on the video clip shown in court.
Despite being involved in taking the statements, Ahmed admitted to the court that he was unable to recall the number of statements the first defendant gave to the EFCC.
Judge Halilu postponed the trial to March 20 in the interim. But he overturned the court’s decision to revoke Akindele’s bail.
This was in response to an application filed in that regard by Joe Abraham, Akindele’s attorney, alerting the court to the fact that the second defendant had not shown in court during the previous session.
He explained that this was because, although his client arrived in court that day, the matter had already been postponed due to traffic congestion.
Nonetheless, the prosecution did not object to the application.
