THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in the appeal by the Federal Government asking it to set aside the acquittal of Senate President Bukola Saraki on charges of false assets declaration.
A three-man panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Tinuade Akomolafe Wilson, told parties after they adopted their briefs of argument yesterday that the court would inform them when judgment was ready.
The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), in a ruling on June 14 this year, discharged and acquitted Saraki on the 18-count charge of false assets declaration, among others, brought against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
In his lead ruling on June 14, CCT’s Chairman, Danladi Umar, upheld Saraki’s no-case submission and held that the prosecution was unable to prove its allegations against the defendant.
Dissatisfied with the CCT’s decision, the Federal Government, through the CCB, approached the Court of Appeal and sought among others the voiding of the tribunal’s ruling.
Adopting the appellant’s brief yesterday, lawyer to the CCB, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to uphold the appeal, reverse the CCT’s decision and order Saraki to enter his defence in the case.
Jacobs contended that the CCT was in error when it adjudged as hearsay, the oral evidence by the prosecution’s third witness, who is the Head, Intelligence Unit at the CCB, Samuel Madojemu,
He added: “It is our position that the lower tribunal did not consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The empahsis I will like to make is on the evidence of PW3.
“We argue that there is nothing like hearsay evidence in the oral evidence of PW3, who is the investigative officer.
“There are authorities of the Supreme Court that say once the evidence of a witness is supported by documentary evidence, his oral testimony merely the hanger that holds the evidence.”
Jacobs urged the Court of Appeal to hold that the Code of Conduct Tribunal was wrong in “upholding a no-case submission raised by the respondent at the close of prosecution‘s case”.
He equally urged the court to hold that the learned members of the tribunal were wrong “in holding that the respondent was not invited by the EFCC (the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission) in the course of its investigation”.
Jacobs argued that the tribunal was wrong “in holding that the investigation conducted by a team of investigators from the EFCC and the CCB was illegal and unknown to law.”
He faulted the tribunal’s conclusion that “failure to produce the original asset declaration forms and the written statement of the respondent, is fatal to the case of the prosecution when the prosecution tendered the certified true copies (CTC) of the documents.”
Jacobs also argued that the tribunal was wrong “in upholding the no-case submission in the instant case.
Jacobs urged the court to hold that the CCT ruling was perverse.
Saraki’s lawyer and former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the Federal Government’s appeal on the grounds that it was without merit.
The former AGF said: “They contended that because PW3’s evidence supported by documents it was not hearsay, but there are no documents in support of the evidence.
“The witness said he derived his evidence from what he was told by somebody he did not name.
“The contention of the appellant (prosecution) at the tribunal was that the onus was on the respondent (Saraki) to prove his innocence. It is not surprising that they did not call witnesses.
“May I urge your lordship to dismiss this appeal, it has merit.”
He urged the court to answer in the affirmative the questions he raised for determination.
They include:
“Whether the tribunal was right when it held, contrary to the submission of the prosecution, that the burden of proof was upon the prosecution and not the defendant and that the prosecution failed to discharge that burden.
“Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the prosecution had not made out a case warranting an answer from the defendant and in consequence made an order discharging and acquitting the defendant.
“Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was hearsay, which afflicted and bedevilled the entirety of the prosecution’s case in violation of sections 37, 38 and 126 of the Evidence Act; and
“Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the hearsay evidence of the prosecution coupled with the general reference to a team the membership of which was not specified could not establish a prima facie case against the defendant.”
“Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the failure of the prosecution to respond to seven of the issues raised by the defendant constituted an admission of those issues leaving the tribunal with no alternative than to rule that no case had been made out against the defendant warranting an answer from him.”
