An
unimaginable drama, on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, stalled the
cross-examination of prosecution witness, Abu Sule in the case involving
a former governor of Imo State, Ikedi Ohakim, as prosecution counsel,
Festus Keyamo, revealed how the accused’s son, Emeka Ohakim, had
allegedly went on the trail of the prosecution witness.
Ohakim
is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission,
EFCC, for allegedly making a cash payment of $2, 290,000.00( Two
Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-Thousand Dollars) for a piece of land at
Plot No. 1098 Cadastral Zone A04, Asokoro District, otherwise known as
No. 60, Kwame Nkuruma Street, Asokoro, Abuja.
Addressing
Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja,
Keyamo said the PW2, Sule, managing director, Tweenex Consociate H.D.
Limited, phoned him about 9.00p.m. on Monday, January 25, 2016, saying
that the second son of the defendant, Emeka Ohakim, had gone to his(
Sule) office at Asokoro to inquire about his home address from some
individuals.
According to Keyamo, Ohakim had
allegedly approached three people, whose names he gave simply as Okon (a
driver), Akpabor (a driver) and Shola (an architect), for Sule’s home
address.
He
said: ‘‘we don’t want to distract the court from this trial. But I
thought it goes beyond the issue of counsel to counsel because it
touches on the administration of justice and protection of the witness
concerned.
‘‘We
will apply, at this stage, that a word of caution and concern go out.
If it repeats itself, we shall bring appropriate application before the
court over the development.’’
However,
in his response, lead counsel to the defendant, Chris Uche, SAN,
expressed shock at what he described as Keyamo’s outburst, saying that
the matter should have been discussed at another gathering rather than
blowing it in the open.
According
to him, ‘‘I have no doubt that what the prosecution has said amounts to
destabilizing the defence. Keyamo had been sitting directly behind us
for more than one hour before the case was called, but he didn’t raise
the matter. He also saw the defendant eyeball to eyeball when he came to
our seats, yet he didn’t discuss the matter. Now, it is on the Internet
and it will be in the press tomorrow.’’
The
defence counsel, who further urged the court to dismiss the story as
unfounded, said the prosecution could file an application on the matter
as he had mentioned to the court.
After
listening to both counsel, Justice Adeniyi, who was visibly disturbed
about the allegation, said there was no harm if the prosecution had
hinted the defendant and his counsels about the incident.
‘‘I
am a bit disturbed. It is a very serious allegation. We can’t deny the
fact that it also touches on the defendant himself. Alternatively, you
could have asked to seek audience with me in chambers in the presence of
the defence counsel and the defendant’,’’ he said.
The
defence counsel further told the court that the prosecution had failed
to handle the matter properly, adding that his action was not in
consonance with a traditional belief that says an elder should report
any act of misconduct by a child to his father.
In
his reaction, Keyamo said: ‘‘I find it extremely objectionable. He has
said things about my person, whereas I have never said anything about
him. I will not treat an issue of threat to life in private! There is
no rule of legal practice that says such an issue should be discussed in
private. It depends on my judgment.’’
Consequently, Justice Ademola adjourned the case to Wednesday, January 27, 2016 for continuation of trial.
Wilson Uwujaren
Head, Media & Publicity
26th January, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment