NAN-H-131
Ruling
By Edith Nwapi
Abuja, Jan. 17, 2017 (NAN) An Abuja High court on Tuesday upheld the objection by Dr Onyechi Ikepeazu (SAN), counsel to Justice Adeniyi Ademola to the admissibility of statement by a prosecution witness in the case of an alleged corruption.
Ademola, his wife Olabowale and Mr Joe Aji (SAN) are standing trial for the alleged corruption.
They were arraigned by the Federal Government on a 16-count of conspiracy to receive gratification in various ways contrary to section 8(1)(a) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act 2000 and also for illegal possession of firearms.
The judge, Justice Jude Okeke, delivered ruling on the admissibility of a statement made by the first prosecution witness, Ifeoma Ofornagolu, a Sales Consultant with the Cocharis Motors Ltd.
Ofornagolu was said to have made the statement at the Department of State Service (DSS) on Dec. 2 when she was invited by the department.
Okeke ruled that the prosecution did not draw the court’s attention in spite of the opportunity he had to do so.
“This court is well guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on this issue.
“In the light of this, the court agrees with the submission of the learned Defence Counsel (Ikpeazu) that the written statement made by PW1 at the office of DSS can only be admitted only by the witness for the purpose of contradicting her testimony in this court.
“The statement having not been tendered for this purpose is not admissible in evidence, in this circumstance the court upholds the objection by the learned defence counsel, the statement is accordingly rejected,’’ he said.
On Jan. 17, the prosecution tendered in evidence a written statement by the witness in the office of the DSS.
The defence counsel raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document.
His objection referred to sections 231 and 232 of the Evidence Act concerning cross-examination as to previous statements in writing made by a witness.
He also referred to section 46 of the Evidence Act.
The court ruled also that “it is apparent that the extra judicial statement by a witness to the police can only be admitted for the purpose of contradicting the witness in regards to his evidence in the witness box. (NAN)
NEO/PDE
=======
(Edting by Peter Ejiofor)