 |
| Police |
An FCT High Court, Maitama, on Monday, adjourned until December 13 for the continuation of hearing in trial-within-trial of the fourth defendant in the N14bn Police Pension scam.
Veronica Onyegbula is the fourth defendant in the case of alleged complicity in over N14bn Police Pension Fund scam filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Others are Esar Dangabar, Atiku Kigo, Ahmed Wada, Sani Zira, Uzoma Attang, and Christian Madubuke.
The judge, Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf, adjourned the case after the prosecuting counsel, Oluwaleke Atulegbe, informed the court that he was unable to come with the fourth witness.
At one of the sittings, Mr Mustapha Gandaya, an EFCC officer, also a witness brought by the prosecution, sought to tender the statements made by Onyegbula to the EFCC, but her counsel opposed tendering of the document.
Onyegbula’s counsel, Mr Ernest Ikeji, informed the court that EFCC forced his client to make those statements and prayed for trial-within-trial.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Mr Nurideen Suleiman, was brought by the prosecution as the third witness to testify in the trial-within-trial.
Suleiman, led in evidence by the prosecuting counsel, Oluwaleke Atulegbe, told the court that he was among the team that investigated Onyegbula.
He said that on Feb. 16, 2012, other defendants were released because they met the bail conditions, but the fourth defendant was not released because she could not meet the conditions.
He said that on Feb. 17, 2012, a search was carried out at the fourth defendant’s resident and some bank slips and statements and agreement between a company, Ulover International, and another company from South Africa were recovered.
When cross-examined by Ikeji, the fourth defendant’s counsel, the witness said that as at Feb. 17, all other defendants had left the EFCC custody except the fourth defendant.
He said that this was because she could not fulfil the bail condition, and they took her to her house for search after which she made another statement.
The witness said that the fourth defendant was not induced, but the documents recovered speak for themselves, adding that he did not know the date the search warrant was obtained.
He said the fourth defendant was released after the search on Feb. 17, that the bail condition was lowered for her because she could not meet the earlier conditions.
Veronica Onyegbula is the fourth defendant in the case of alleged complicity in over N14bn Police Pension Fund scam filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Others are Esar Dangabar, Atiku Kigo, Ahmed Wada, Sani Zira, Uzoma Attang, and Christian Madubuke.
The judge, Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf, adjourned the case after the prosecuting counsel, Oluwaleke Atulegbe, informed the court that he was unable to come with the fourth witness.
At one of the sittings, Mr Mustapha Gandaya, an EFCC officer, also a witness brought by the prosecution, sought to tender the statements made by Onyegbula to the EFCC, but her counsel opposed tendering of the document.
Onyegbula’s counsel, Mr Ernest Ikeji, informed the court that EFCC forced his client to make those statements and prayed for trial-within-trial.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Mr Nurideen Suleiman, was brought by the prosecution as the third witness to testify in the trial-within-trial.
Suleiman, led in evidence by the prosecuting counsel, Oluwaleke Atulegbe, told the court that he was among the team that investigated Onyegbula.
He said that on Feb. 16, 2012, other defendants were released because they met the bail conditions, but the fourth defendant was not released because she could not meet the conditions.
He said that on Feb. 17, 2012, a search was carried out at the fourth defendant’s resident and some bank slips and statements and agreement between a company, Ulover International, and another company from South Africa were recovered.
When cross-examined by Ikeji, the fourth defendant’s counsel, the witness said that as at Feb. 17, all other defendants had left the EFCC custody except the fourth defendant.
He said that this was because she could not fulfil the bail condition, and they took her to her house for search after which she made another statement.
The witness said that the fourth defendant was not induced, but the documents recovered speak for themselves, adding that he did not know the date the search warrant was obtained.
He said the fourth defendant was released after the search on Feb. 17, that the bail condition was lowered for her because she could not meet the earlier conditions.
In this article: