The trial of Akindele Akintoye, Platforms Capital Investment Partners Limited and Duport Midstream Company Limited before Justice Ekerete Akpan of the Federal High Court, Abuja, continued on Tuesday, with the court fixing April 14, 2026, to rule on the admissibility of a document relating to Akintoye’s request to acquire the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB)
The defendants are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on an amended six-count charge bordering on alleged dishonesty and conversion of $35 million belonging to NCDMB.
At the resumed hearing, the fourth prosecution witness, Isaac Yalah, confirmed during cross-examination by counsel to the first and second defendants, E.O. Adekwu, SAN, that the document shown to him was a copy of a letter written by Akintoye to the board.
“I confirm the letter now shown to me is a copy of that letter from the first defendant to buy off NCDMB entirely,” the witness told the court.
However, when the defence sought to tender the document in evidence, prosecution counsel, E.E. Iheanacho, SAN, objected to its admissibility.
Iheanacho argued that the document was merely a photocopy of a public document and therefore inadmissible without certification.
“The document is a photocopy of an original and it is addressed to NCDMB, which is a public institution. Such document must be certified. The only admissible copy of a public document in law is a certified true copy,” he said.
He relied on Sections 89 and 102 of the Evidence Act and cited the cases of Adeyefa v. Bamgboye (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1863) 532 and Onwuzuruike v. Edoziem (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt.1508) 205, urging the court to reject the document.
In response, defence counsel Adekwu, SAN, argued that the document had ceased to be a public document and should be treated as a private one.
He further told the court that the document was produced pursuant to a subpoena issued by the court on November 19, 2025, directing NCDMB to produce it.
“Because of that, we submit that the document is admissible on all grounds, and we urge my lord to admit it in evidence,” he argued.
But Iheanacho maintained that the subpoena only required the document to be produced before the court and did not automatically make it admissible in evidence.
“The subpoena issued was only to produce the document and not to tender it in evidence. Even if served on NCDMB, the officer can only produce the document before the court; it does not cure any defect regarding admissibility under the Evidence Act,” he said.
He further argued that the witness called by the prosecution had already retired from the NCDMB and there was no proof that he was served with the subpoena.
In this article