Suleiman Ciroma, the prosecution’s witness, disclosed to the Federal High Court Abuja that his business, Funnacle BDC Ltd., had been properly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) while the jury is still in progress in the case involving Halima Buba, the Managing Director of Sun Trust Bank, and her co-defendant.
He testified against the first defendant, Johnson Usman, under the direct supervision of his attorney.
The witness acknowledged running the Bureau De Change (BDC) as of 2021.
He claimed that Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the bank’s executive director and chief compliance officer, were not bankers.
According to Ciroma, who had previously admitted to the court that he was no longer engaged in BDC’s business, Funnacle BDC Ltd. had not been liquidated in accordance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He claimed to have met Aisha Achimugu at Sun Trust Bank in 2021.
The PW-1 acknowledged that she soon gave him the $1.8 million to exchange her for the naira equivalent and that she soon gave it to him shortly after meeting her.
He claimed that the funds were distributed in tranches.
The witness confirmed that he was not present at Sun Trust Bank’s Lagos branch on March 10 and March 13 and March 14 respectively.
READ ALSO: FG Disagrees, as Nnamdi Kanu’s attorney claims threats are “mere boast.”
He also confirmed that he was not at Sun Trust Bank’s Abuja branch on March 10.
He claimed to have been informed of the EFCC’s invitation to him during the April 11 or April 12 transaction and that he received his same day release.
He claimed to have signed two to three extra-judicial statements at the anti-graft agency’s office.
He acknowledged that the charges against him were related to the case.
However, Rotimi Oyedepo, the EFCC’s attorney, objected when the defendant’s attorney attempted to prosecute him on the charge.
In response, Usman and Oyedepo both sought to tender the charge’s Certified True Copy (CTC) to Justice Nwite and both disagreed.
Pages 10 to 12 of the charge, according to the commission’s attorney, were EFCC-related letters of investigation.
He claimed that upon paying the required fee, the EFCC officer would be the one who could certify the document.
Only the EFCC can certify the defendants’ statements, the attorney claimed, pages 32 to 83 are extrajudicial statements provided by the defendants to the EFCC and other witnesses called in the proceedings.
He claimed that the eligibility requirements set forth in section 232 of the Evidence Act can only be satisfied when giving extrajudicial statements to various witnesses.
He asserted that he would not be requesting the court’s rejection of the document but instead resisted that it be rejected.
However, Usman disagreed with Oyedepo’s submission.
He argued that the EFCC lawyer’s statements did not apply to the current situation.
The circumstances and the facts are, in his opinion, distinct.
Additionally, he claimed that their argument is supported by Section 104 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).
He made an effort to segmentate written statements, immigration documents, and documents from Sun Trust Bank, among others.
According to him, “The law is settled upon which there is no radical departure, and its attachment automatically becomes admissible in law once it is accepted,” citing the apex court’s previous case.
The charge that the prosecution has filed is what we want to tender. They are therefore not separate documents, he continued, and they can never be taken as such.
The senior attorney added that other documents that had been included in a document would be included once it had been accepted as an exhibit.
It is a strange legal principle, he claims.
Read more about the EFCC’s alleged $6.9 billion fraud at the appeal court.
They are charged with the offense they are trying to tend. What then are they fleeing? Air cannot be blown out of your mouth. One is “hot” and “cold,” he continued.
Usman requested that the court reject EFCC’s argument.
Case Interrupted
Justice Emeka Nwite extended the trial’s adjournment until October 13 for a decision and continuation.
Innocent Mbagwu, the executive director/chief compliance officer of Sun Trust Bank, and Buba, her co-defendant, are facing money laundering charges totaling $ 12 million.
In a six-count charge, it was claimed that the duo had allegedly facilitated high-value cash transactions without utilizing a financial institution to facilitate them.
The crime is alleged to be against Sections 21 (a), 2 (1), and 9 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and is punishable by Section 19 (2) (b) of the same act.
The anti-graft agency arraigned the defendants on June 13.
