The federal high court sitting in Abuja has adjourned till 13th of October for ruling on the admissibility of the charge sought to be tendered as evidence by the defence team in the suit filed by the EFCC against Halima Buba, Managing Director of SunTrust Bank.
In continuation of his evidence, EFCC’s first witness Suleiman Ciroma said his company, Funnacle BDC Ltd, was duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
Under cross-examination, he admitted that as of 2021, he was a Bureau De Change (BDC) operator.
He said Halima Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of the bank, are not directors in his company.
Ciroma, who had earlier told the court that he was no longer in the business of BDC, admitted that Funnacle BDC Ltd had not been wound up in accordance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He admitted that he met Aisha Achimugu in 2021 at SunTrust Bank.
Also, she gave him the sum of 1.8 million US dollars for swapping into naira and credited her in naira equivalent same year.
He confirmed that he was not at the Lagos branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10, March 13, March 14, March 20 and March 24.
Similarly, he confirmed that he was not at the Abuja branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10
Read Also
He told the court that he was invited by the EFCC on April 11 or April 12 in respect of the transactions and that he was released the same day.
He made about two to three extra-judicial statements at the anti-graft agency’s office and the said statements were signed by him and the statements formed part of the charge before the court.
However, when Usman sought to take Ciroma on the charge, EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, objected.
Mr Oyedepo contended that Pages 10 to 12 of the charge are letters of investigation of the EFCC.
He submitted that the officer who could certify the document was the EFCC officer in whose custody the primary evidence can be seen and inspected upon the payment of the prescribed fee.
He argued that extra-judicial statements of various witnesses can only be tendered upon the satisfaction of the condition enunciated by Section 232 of the Evidence Act.
The defence counsel, however, disagreed with Oyedepo’s submission.
According to him, the facts and circumstances are different.
The document sought to be tendered was fully paid by the applicant with a receipt fully endorsed by the Federal High Court.
Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Oct. 13, Oct. 16 and Oct 17 for ruling and continuation of trial.
The defendants are being prosecuted on money laundering offences to the tune of $12 million.
In a six-count charge, they were alleged to have aided high-value cash transactions without routing them through a financial institution.
