 |
| Court |
The Federal High Court sitting in Jos, presided over by Mr. Justice Babatunde Quadiri, has adjourned the case between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the former governor of Gombe State, Mallam Danjuma Goje and three others till March 22, following a no-case submission by the defence counsel, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN).
Goje is being tried for theft, forgery, misappropriation, fraud, diversion and money laundering. When the case came up for adoption of final written addresses, Erokoro, counsel to Goji, submitted that out of the 24 witnesses produced by the prosecution counsel, none provided evidence or document allegedly forged by the former governor.
Erokoro contended that the documents alleged to have been forged were not tendered before the court, which, according to him, amounted to suppression of evidence, citing legal authorities to buttress his arguments, especially Section 167(b) of the Evidence Act, submitting that the original documents alleged to have been forged ought to and must be tendered before the court.
In his annotation of the issue, prosecution counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), who told the court that he relied on the 308 pages of written address he submitted, however, pointed out that it was not time for the defence counsel to consider the credibility of evidence of proof of witnesses.
In this article:
Goje is being tried for theft, forgery, misappropriation, fraud, diversion and money laundering. When the case came up for adoption of final written addresses, Erokoro, counsel to Goji, submitted that out of the 24 witnesses produced by the prosecution counsel, none provided evidence or document allegedly forged by the former governor.
Erokoro contended that the documents alleged to have been forged were not tendered before the court, which, according to him, amounted to suppression of evidence, citing legal authorities to buttress his arguments, especially Section 167(b) of the Evidence Act, submitting that the original documents alleged to have been forged ought to and must be tendered before the court.
In his annotation of the issue, prosecution counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), who told the court that he relied on the 308 pages of written address he submitted, however, pointed out that it was not time for the defence counsel to consider the credibility of evidence of proof of witnesses.
In this article: