“After securing the interim forfeiture order, the commission visited, marked, sealed and restricted all the properties to show the general public that the said properties are under investigations by the EFCC,” he said.

The defence team led by Bolaji Ayorinde, however, objected the evidence of the prosecution witness, saying that any evidence of the interim order not before the court or in the proof of evidence was irrelevant to the proceedings, arguing that “the witness cannot allude until the documents are put before your Lordship either in the proof or additional proof of evidence.

“The witness cannot give evidence on the content of the interim forfeiture order because the court and the defence team have not sighted the documents. The evidence given by the witness is not captured in Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA). “

Ayorinde also told the court that the evidence by the witness did not form part of the court records and that the interim forfeiture order had not been tendered before the court, and prayed the court to expunge the evidence given by the witness.

The prosecution counsel in his response told the court that the submission of the defence was immature, adding that “My Lord, the witness confirmed to the court that the interim forfeiture order of the court was sought and obtained by the EFCC.The order contains the list of properties seized from Amosu and others. My Lord, the evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible”

Oyedepo, posited that Section 379 of the ACJA does not govern the receiving of evidence, and further urged the court to allow the witness give evidence on what he knows about the matter.

Meanwhile, Justice M Idris ruled in favour of the prosecution and asked the witness to continue his evidence and adjourned the case to April 18, 2018 for continuation of trial

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button