At the resumed hearing of the case with suit number SUIT NO.: FCT/CR/100/2025 before Justice A.A Halilu of the FCT High Court, the prosecution tendered additional documents through its first prosecution witness (PW1), including a letter from the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) to the EFCC.
The prosecution sought to tender a letter dated October 3, 2024, requesting an investigation into the matter.
It also tendered a letter from Access Bank addressed to the EFCC, together with the accompanying account information relating to the alleged payment of N1.5 million.
On the FCTA letter, the prosecution argued that the document was addressed to the EFCC and was in the Commission’s custody. Citing Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution submitted that the document could be certified and tendered by the EFCC.
Regarding the Access Bank letter, the prosecution argued that the original document received by the Commission was being tendered, relying on Sections 86, 4 and 5 of the Evidence Act.
Counsel to the first and third defendants objected to the admissibility of the document, arguing that it was a public document that ought to be certified before being tendered in evidence.
Counsel further argued that the document did not emanate from the EFCC and that the certification relied upon was insufficient. The court subsequently requested counsel to provide judicial authorities in support of the objection.
Counsel to the second defendant also objected to its admissibility, arguing that the document constituted an entry in a banker’s book and that, under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, PW1 was not the appropriate person to tender it.
Counsel urged the court to reject and discountenance the document.
Counsel representing the fourth defendant aligned himself with the objection and relied on Section 104(3) of the Evidence Act, arguing that the prescribed procedure for admitting the document had not been followed.
He also submitted that no proper foundation had been laid for its admissibility.
In its response, the prosecution maintained that the documents were admissible, arguing that the letters were addressed to the EFCC and were in the Commission’s custody.
The court, while ruling on the objections, considered the arguments concerning the certification of the documents and the competence of PW1 to tender the Access Bank letter.
The court held that, given that the letters were addressed to the EFCC and were in the Commission’s custody, the EFCC was competent to tender the copies in its possession.
The court further observed that the admissibility of documentary evidence is primarily determined by its relevance. It consequently admitted the documents in evidence and marked them as Exhibit C.
The court, however, indicated that the parties would have the opportunity to address the issues raised concerning the admissibility of the documents in their final written addresses.
Prosecution witness (PW 1), an EFCC official and member of the investigative team assigned to the case, testified on the additional investigative steps undertaken in the course of the investigation.
In response to a question by the prosecution, PW1 stated that the second defendant, Isaac Isheku, was arrested and volunteered a statement under caution, which was obtained by Mrs Elizabeth Eke.
He further testified that the investigation revealed that the first defendant had written a petition to the President, alleging that she was being wrongfully accused by the EFCC in connection with Plot No. 4022, Guzape, and an alleged fortification on the property.
According to PW1, the President directed the Minister to investigate the complaint, following which the Minister constituted a committee to look into the matter. The committee’s report was subsequently forwarded to the EFCC through a letter dated October 3, 2024.
The EFCC witness told the court that the Certificate of Occupancy bearing the name of Amina Musa Usman, with Serial No. 022299 and dated June 27, 2014, which was allegedly used to obtain building plan approval from the Department of Development Control, was not issued by the FCTA Land Registry and was therefore not authentic.
He stated that the Right of Occupancy bearing the name of Amina Usman, with Serial No. 001891 and dated June 27, 2014, was the authentic document issued by the FCTA.
According to the witness, the original document was collected by the nominal complainant, Mrs Yusuf, on March 19, 2020.
The witness further revealed that the Power of Attorney dated June 18, 2015, allegedly registered on July 7, 2015, and relied upon by the first defendant, was never registered at the FCT Land Registry.
Although the registration particulars appearing on the document existed, he said they belonged to a different title document relating to another property associated with one Michael Anthony.
He also testified that the site plan dated May 13, 2022, purportedly signed by the Head of AGIS on May 16, 2022, was neither produced nor issued by AGIS.
The witness further told the court that the first defendant instituted an action in court in the name of the original allottee, Amina Musa Usman.
During the proceedings, she allegedly presented a police case diary and an affidavit dated June 22, 2014, stating that the original Right of Occupancy had been lost while in transit from Wuse to Asokoro.
The witness stated that investigations revealed that the first defendant was not the lawful owner of the title to the property but had allegedly applied for and obtained building plan approval using the name of the original allottee, Amina Musa Usman.
