The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has fixed June 27 and 27 and July 3 and 4 for a ruling on an application by the EFCC to “cross-examine” its third prosecution witness (PW-3) in the trial of former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter on Friday after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), sought to cross-examine the third witness on the documents labelled as exhibit 19 and for continuation of the trial.

The request was made after the defendant’s counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), concluded his cross-examination of the PW-3, Nicholas Ojehomon, an internal auditor with American International School, Abuja (AISA).

Mr Daudu asked Mr Ojehomon if he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to American International School (AISA). The internal auditor responded affirmatively, but could not mention the exact court.

The witness also admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello, the nephew of the former governor, but added that he never said anything adverse against him.

The witness’ response concluded the cross-examination by Mr Daudu, after which Mr Pinherio moved to cross-examine the witness on Exhibit 19, informing the court, “I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document”.

However, the defence counsel opposed the move that Mr Pinheiro could only re-examine the witness, drawing the attention of the court to the fact that the prosecution counsel’s position was unknown to law, in line with the Evidence Act

Mr Dauda argued, “If you want to cross-examine your witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross-examine him based on the document.” Mr Pinheiro told the court that he had the right to call the court’s attention to some specific paragraphs in the document.

The judge then asked Mr Pinheiro, “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?”

In response, Mr Pinheiro said, “I will draw your lordship’s attention to section 36 of the Constitution. They sought to tender this document, we objected, and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant, too, has the right to examine this because section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing.”

However, the defence counsel clarified that while the prosecution counsel can re-examine the witness, cross-examination is not allowed unless the prosecution can cite an aspect of the law that allows it.

“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” Mr Dauda said.

Putting an end to the argument, the judge refused the EFCC from cross-examining the witness, stating, “Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in chief and the defendant cross-examines, then the prosecution re-examines”

“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this, and I will take a position,” Mr Nwite stated.

Mr Pinheiro then re-examined the EFCC’s witness, which the judge gave him the go-ahead, informing him, “You can re-examine him on that, but not to ask questions that will show cross-examination”.

While re-examining the witness, Mr Pinheiro’s questions seemed like a cross-examination, which Mr Dauda pointed out to the court, prompting the judge to intervene.

The judge then insisted that the parties address him on the specific issue.

Mr Dauda in his address said, “My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by refering the witness to the document tender in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence in chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act.”

However, Mr Pinheiro disagreed, saying that in the case of Amobi Amobi referred to by the defendant’s counsel, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial judge ought to have allowed a re-examination of Exhibit E.

He said that when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team “submitted that this document was not made by the witness and as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross-examination or allowed to be confronted with it.”

Justice Nwite, consequently, adjourned the matter until June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of the trial.