The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in suit number FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr. Ali Bello and the Incorporated Trustees of American International School, Abuja.

Joseph Daudu, SAN, representing former Kogi State Governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who is facing trial for alleged money laundering, had on Friday, before proceeding with the cross-examination of the EFCC’s third witness, Nicholas Ohehomon from the American International School, Abuja (AISA), sought to tender the document, which had decided on the issue of payment of fees or refund in the ongoing case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State.

The defence counsel had also sought to tender the receipts of the recertification of the said judgment of the Abuja High Court.

However, the EFCC lead counsel, Ken Pinheiro, SAN, who had earlier led the witness in evidence, objected to the tendering of the document, saying that the prosecution had not yet closed its case.

He argued that the defendant could not tender documents at a time when the prosecution was still proving its case.

Citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act, Pinheiro said the only type of document that can be sought to be tendered during cross-examination is a previous statement in writing by a witness for the purpose of contradicting or challenging his current testimony.

Reacting, Daudu said, “My Lord, the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly and exclusively by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.

“Once it is adjudged, we submit that the document is relevant, it becomes automatically admissible. That is what is contained in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

“The question for Your Lordship is, is this document relevant and admissible in line with the provisions of the Evidence Act? The answer has been provided by my learned brother silk for the prosecution when he referred to the content of the judgment and read out a portion which says that a particular relief was refused and that the fee agreement was upheld in the same judgment.”

He said the public documents they sought to tender had AISA as a party and that, as far as the defendant was concerned, the witness was the sole witness of AISA in the matter. He added that the prosecution’s objection was speculative because “he does not know what we want to do with the record yet.”

“Because he (Pinheiro, SAN) is not comfortable with the document does not stop its admissibility,” he added.

Pinheiro, however, urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the defence counsel had not demonstrated that it falls within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

After listening to the submissions of counsel on the admissibility or otherwise of the FCT High Court judgment, the trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, adjourned the case to May 8 and 9 for ruling on the admissibility of the document and for the continuation of the trial.

Earlier, when the trial resumed on Friday, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, asked the registrar to give the witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, Exhibit 13P1.

The witness identified the exhibit as a telex from the bank sent to the school via email by Ali Bello.

The witness was also told to identify Exhibits 13P2 to 13P4, and she confirmed that they were transfers made by Forza Oil and Gas in favor of the respective children.

He identified Exhibit 13P5, a telex by Whales Oil and Gas to American International School, as well as others.

The witness told the court that the name of Yahaya Bello is not indicated as a sender in any of the fund transfers to AISA.

During the examination, EFCC’s counsel asked the witness to tell the court in whose names four of the payment receipts were issued, and the witness said the receipts were issued in the names of four children of the former governor after being prompted by the prosecution counsel.

The defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, cut in, saying that the witness should read the names on the receipt.

“My Lord, he (Pinheiro, SAN) is demonstrating this document. The witness cannot import or infer into the exhibit what is not there,” he stated.

Meanwhile, the defence counsel could not proceed with his cross-examination because the judge had to adjourn for a ruling on the admissibility of a judgment of the FCT High Court on the issue of payments of school fees.

The judgment was said to have settled the allegations brought against Yahaya Bello by the anti-graft agency regarding the payment of the children’s school fees.

Specifically, the court verdict reportedly declared the action of the EFCC regarding the mode of the children’s school fees as illegal and unlawful on the grounds that the children have fundamental rights to education.