ENUGU, Nigeria (VOICE OF NAIJA)- Former Governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday disagreed at the Federal High Court in Abuja over a subpoenaed witness presented in the ongoing alleged N1.35 billion money laundering trial.
The matter came up before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu shortly after proceedings resumed, with the commission prosecuting Lamido alongside his two sons, Aminu and Mustapha, as well as Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies, Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.
The defendants, through their counsel, Joe Agi (SAN), had applied for the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, and other officials to be summoned to testify in their defence after their no-case submission was dismissed.
Although the prosecution had already closed its case after calling 17 witnesses, the defence insisted on further testimony through the commission’s leadership.
At Tuesday’s sitting, an EFCC staff member, Kayode Oyetunde, appeared as the subpoenaed witness. However, the defence requested an adjournment to properly interface with him, a move opposed by the prosecution counsel, Chile Okoroma (SAN).
READ ALSO: PDP Crisis: Sule Lamido Threatens To Quit Party
The prosecution urged the court instead to stand down proceedings briefly, arguing that all relevant documents had already been frontloaded and submitted as evidence.
Justice Ojukwu refused to adjourn the case, warning against granting delays on that basis, but later stood down proceedings for about an hour to allow both sides to engage with the witness.
Under examination, the witness told the court he was not part of the investigative team and was only assigned to retrieve documents requested in the subpoena.
The defence counsel thereafter argued that the witness could not provide useful testimony, insisting that only a relevant investigative officer or the EFCC Chairman could properly respond.
However, the prosecution maintained that the EFCC, as a corporate body, could be represented by any competent officer and that the subpoena should not be treated as absolute.
The judge advised the defence to apply formally if it wished to recall earlier witnesses, noting that subpoenas are generally issued when witnesses fail to appear voluntarily.
She subsequently admitted the subpoenaed documents as evidence and adjourned the case until June 4 for continuation of trial proceedings.