Alleged N6.3bn Fraud: Court Rejects EFCC’s Exhibit Against Jonah Jang







By James Abraham 

Justice Christy Dabup of Plateau State High Court on Wednesday ruled that the disputed statements obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the ongoing trial involving a former governor of the state, Jonah Jang, were not voluntary and therefore, cannot be tendered as evidence in court.

Justice Dabup, who gave the ruling at the conclusion of the trial-within-trial after taking arguments from lawyers to the parties, rejected the EFCC’s claim that the statements were voluntary.

Jang, who served as governor of Plateau State between 2007 and 2015, is standing trial alongside a former cashier in the Office of the Secretary to the State Government, Yusuf Pam, over alleged misappropriation of public funds amounting to over N6.3bn

Before the ruling by the court, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), had called a witness, Sunday Musa, to testify.

Musa, an investigator with the EFCC, had told the court Yusuf Pam withdrew cash running into millions of naira and handed it over to the former governor.

He claimed that their investigation revealed that the money was part of the N2bn which the Central Bank of Nigeria gave to the state government as a loan in 2015 for disbursement to medium and small scale enterprises.

But when the EFCC counsel sought to tender the statements which the commission obtained from Pam as an exhibit through Musa, counsel for Pam, S. Oyawole, raised an objection and argued that the said statements were obtained under duress from his client and therefore inadmissible in court.

The development had prompted the court to order a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily given.

Delivering her judgment, Justice Dabup stated, “The court has considered all the arguments and evidence before it during the trial within trial.

“It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the statements were made voluntarily.

“For a confessional statement to be admitted in court, it must be proven to be voluntary.

“The statements were not recorded or videoed.

“The prosecution witness admitted that none was present except the team of investigators when the confessional statements were obtained. The second defendant wanted his lawyers present but they did not oblige him. “Non compliance with administrative criminal justice will affect the admissibility of the confessional statements.”

“The court observed the demeanour of the witnesses were evasive during the cross-examination.”

“It appears to the court that the second defendant was more or less guided to make his statements rather than being left alone to make his confessional statements. Therefore, all issues are resolved in favour of the second defendant.”

The case is expected to continue on May 12, 2022.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gov Mutfwang Unveils Multi Million Naira Ultra Modern Motor Park In Plateau

PLSG is Committed to Empowering Etrepreneurs in the State to Unplug Their Full Potential – Danladi Gyang

Jos South LG PDP Aspirant, Jang Picks Nomination Form, Promises to Transform Jos South if Elected