Why Jang did not honour EFCC summons, by Ozekhome
Ozekhome disclosed that while a Plateau High Court in Jos had set aside four days to finish the case between EFCC and Jang, which started yesterday, the same agency invited him to its Kano office today, to answer some charges.
He described the action of the anti-graft agency as very incongruous and antithetical.
Addressing reporters yesterday after the court session, Ozekhome decried the embarrassment that the agency wanted to cause Jang, who was the former governor of the state.
He blamed the EFCC for engaging in media trial, as newspapers were awash with the reports that property worth N500million was traced to his client.
He said: “They said it by their own evaluation, but there is nothing like that. There is nothing in the charges that relates to that at all. It is just to embarrass the former governor, by putting his case in the public domain even when we are already in court.”
According to him, EFCC cannot tell the person who it is prosecuting to again report at its office on the same date that the matter it fixed was coming up.
He said he had to personally write to the EFCC, on behalf of Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers, to say Jang cannot honour that invitation because he is not a spirit, or esoteric.
“He is not like witches and wizards that gather in a coven to be in one place, and another at the same time,” he said.
When the case came up yesterday, the third prosecution witness, from Zenith Bank, Kpaja Emmanuel, a banker and marketer, told the court that he did not identify the account of Plateau State government.
Led by the EFCC prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), he admitted knowing that of the office of the Secretary to the state government.
Emmanuel also admitted that his main duty as a relationship manager is to manage accounts on behalf of customers.
However, Ozekhome objected to his attempt to tender some documents of transactions, which Sunny Odey, counsel to the second accused, Yusuf Gyang, also supported.
Justice Daniel Longji adjourned till today for ruling on the argument, and continuation of trial.
No comments yet