Atuche’s trial: Lawyers in heated debate over Evidence Act, 2011.
Lawyers to former Managing Director of Bank PHB, Francis Atuche, on Wednesday disagreed with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission prosecutors over the status of the New Evidence Act, 2011.
The heated debate took place at an Ikeja High Court presided over by Justice Lateefat Okunnu at the resumed trial of the former bank chief.
The EFCC had charged Atuche, his wife, Elizabeth and Ugo Anyanwu, a former Chief Financial Officer of Bank PHB to court for allegedly stealing over N25.7 billion belonging to the bank.
Okunnu on Wednesday fixed Oct. 14 for ruling on the admissibility of some documentary evidence tendered before the court by the EFCC against the three accused persons.
EFCC prosecutors, Kemi Pinheiro and Dele Adeshina, who tendered the evidence, had urged the court to admit them as exhibits based on the provisions of the new Evidence Act, 2011.
The prosecution further claimed that the evidence was very relevant to the case because they contained details of how the accused persons committed the offences they were being charged with.
The evidence which was obtained through a subpoena of the records of First Registrars Nigeria Ltd., included dividend warrant collection shares and share certificates collection shares.
It also included statements of shares accounts for some listed companies, application forms for the shares of the listed companies, certificates for the collection of dividends and dividend warrants for the listed companies.
Atuche’slawyers, Anthony Idigbe and Deji Sasegbon, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), had objected to the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that it breached the provisions of Sections 93 and 96 of the Evidence Act, 1990.
Idigbe said: `` The Evidence Act states that documents must be proof of primary evidence. The tendered documents are photocopies.
``The documents are also private documents and the provisions of the Evidence Act is very clear that certification of a private document does not suffice it to be admissible in court”.
Responding, Pinheiro argued that the new Evidence Act, 2011 had come into force, adding that the prosecution was relying on Section 84 (1) of the new act for admittance of the exhibits.
Pinheiro said: ``Sections 93 and 96 of the new law have no bearing with this objection. The documents are admissible because they were generated from the computer.
``The new act has been passed into law with the Official Gazzete No. 2, Vol. 98 which is being printed and published by the Federal Government Printers, Lagos as Evidence Act, 2011 (HB. 214).’’
Idigbe, who again objected, said there was no official gazette of the so called new Evidence Act, 2011, stressing that even the Senate President had attested that there was no original copy of the act as yet.
The court had subpoenaed an official of First Registrars Nigeria Ltd., Rauf Bello, to testify at the trial.
The heated debate took place at an Ikeja High Court presided over by Justice Lateefat Okunnu at the resumed trial of the former bank chief.
The EFCC had charged Atuche, his wife, Elizabeth and Ugo Anyanwu, a former Chief Financial Officer of Bank PHB to court for allegedly stealing over N25.7 billion belonging to the bank.
Okunnu on Wednesday fixed Oct. 14 for ruling on the admissibility of some documentary evidence tendered before the court by the EFCC against the three accused persons.
EFCC prosecutors, Kemi Pinheiro and Dele Adeshina, who tendered the evidence, had urged the court to admit them as exhibits based on the provisions of the new Evidence Act, 2011.
The prosecution further claimed that the evidence was very relevant to the case because they contained details of how the accused persons committed the offences they were being charged with.
The evidence which was obtained through a subpoena of the records of First Registrars Nigeria Ltd., included dividend warrant collection shares and share certificates collection shares.
It also included statements of shares accounts for some listed companies, application forms for the shares of the listed companies, certificates for the collection of dividends and dividend warrants for the listed companies.
Atuche’slawyers, Anthony Idigbe and Deji Sasegbon, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), had objected to the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that it breached the provisions of Sections 93 and 96 of the Evidence Act, 1990.
Idigbe said: `` The Evidence Act states that documents must be proof of primary evidence. The tendered documents are photocopies.
``The documents are also private documents and the provisions of the Evidence Act is very clear that certification of a private document does not suffice it to be admissible in court”.
Responding, Pinheiro argued that the new Evidence Act, 2011 had come into force, adding that the prosecution was relying on Section 84 (1) of the new act for admittance of the exhibits.
Pinheiro said: ``Sections 93 and 96 of the new law have no bearing with this objection. The documents are admissible because they were generated from the computer.
``The new act has been passed into law with the Official Gazzete No. 2, Vol. 98 which is being printed and published by the Federal Government Printers, Lagos as Evidence Act, 2011 (HB. 214).’’
Idigbe, who again objected, said there was no official gazette of the so called new Evidence Act, 2011, stressing that even the Senate President had attested that there was no original copy of the act as yet.
The court had subpoenaed an official of First Registrars Nigeria Ltd., Rauf Bello, to testify at the trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment