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.
No comments:
Post a Comment