The prosecution witness said the former CBN governor, Mr Emefiele, gave an approval for the alleged fraudulent withdrawal but did not benefit from the proceeds.
The FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, heard from a prosecution witness on Thursday that former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele did not benefit from the the alleged fraudulent $6.23 million cash withdrawal from a CBN vault in February 2023, during his tenure in office.
Mr Okpoziakpo replied, “No, he did not.”
Presenting the witness with an exhibit, Mr Burkaa asked if the person who collected the money is known and stated in the document. The witness replied, “Yes.”
Asked to read out the name, Mr Okpoziakpo said, “Jubril Abubakar.”
In April, the witness testified about approving documents that facilitated the alleged fraudulent withdrawal.
Mr Okpoziakpo also referenced a letter from the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF)’s office purportedly forwarding a presidential approval of $ 6.23 million “for the elections observers commission.”
In April, Mr Okpoziakpo said some suspects confessed to the illegality of a $6.23 million cash withdrawal from the vault of the CBN during Mr Emefiele’s tenure as the governor of the bank.
The witness informed the court that he interviewed several staff members of CBN during the investigation.
Mr Burkaa asked him about Bashirudeen Maishanu and whether he confessed to stealing the money. Mr Okpoziakpo replied, “Yes, he did.”
When asked if Mr Maishanu was under trial, the witness said he was not aware.
Mr Burkaa again asked if the witness would be surprised that, rather than facing a jury, Mr Maishanu was promoted after Mr Emefiele left office as CBN governor.
Mr Okpoziakpo replied, “I will be shocked.”
However, Mr Oyedepo objected to the line of questioning. He argued that Mr Burkaa was asking for the opinion of the witness, and Mr Maishanu’s promotion did not appear in any of the exhibits in court, making it irrelevant to the case.
Responding, Mr Burkaa said he was not asking for an opinion but for Mr Okpoziakpo’s professional input since he was an investigator in the case.
Mr Burkaa also presented Mr Maishanu’s statement to the witness, where he wrote that he assumed that Mr Emefiele had knowledge of the transaction Eric carried out.
It was at this point that the witness clarified that Mr Emefiele did not benefit from the money and Mr Abubakar collected the contested $6.23 million.
The witness also stated that Mr Abubakar is not a staff member of the SGF office.
He also noted that Mr Abubakar is not standing trial and that Mr Emefiele, while he was being investigated , denied giving approval or signing on the $6.23 million withrawal.
“I recall that on December 13, 2023, we were at Kuje correctional centre, where the defendant made his statement in relation to his office on the $6.23 million.
“In the process, the defendant denied signing for the approval or release of the money.
“The defendant also denied receiving any letter from SGF. He also stated that the signature on the documents that related to the approval and release of the money was not his.”
Mr Burkaa then shifted the court’s attention to a statement made by former SGF, Boss Mustapha, to another investigator, Jim Obaze, on how his signature was forged.
No forensic examination of Mr Emefiele’s signature
Mr Burkaa then challenged the witness that the EFCC carried out a forensic examination of Mr Mustapha’s signature to verify the alleged forgery.
Reacting to this, Mr Okpoziakpo said “it would have been desirable to carry out a similar forensic examination on Mr Emefiele’s signature,” as it was in the case of Mr Mustapha.
He also told the court that part of the contested $6.23 million was recovered from Mr Maishanu and none from Mr Emefiele.
Thereafter, the DPPF sought to re-examine the witness on Mr Emefiele’s authority as CBN’s governor and the statement on the forensic examination he made.
Mr Okpoziakpo said, “While he was governor of CBN, he had dominion over all funds, and the release of funds carried his approval.”
Mr Oyedepo then asked that the exhibits be presented to the witness to clarify the desirability of the forensic document.
But Mr Burkaa objected, arguing that there was nothing ambiguous to clarify and the documents to be presented to the witness had no relevance to his testimony.
