Fifth Prosecution Witness in the ongoing $1.6billion fraud trial of one of a former Petroleum Minister Diezani Allison Madueke’s ally, Jide Omokore, yesterday, told the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja how the Omokore bought about 23 cars for a former National Chairman of the PDP, Adamu Muazu and 25 cars for the incumbent Chairman, Uche Secondus, from proceeds of fraud.
Omokore is standing trial alongside Victor Briggs, Abiye Membere, David Mbanefo, Atlantic Energy Brass Development Limited and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts Limited on a nine-count amended charge, of criminal diversion of about $1.6 billion, alleged to be proceeds of petroleum products belonging to the federal government.
The witness, Oloyede Olawale, had tendered some documents in support of the claim.
Being led in evidence by the Prosecution Counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, Olawale, an accountant and administrative manager with Skymit Limited (a company that specialises in sale and services of automobiles) told the court what he knew about the case in relation to Omokore.
According to him, “some time ago, we got an invitation from the EFCC, which we honoured. When we got there, we were told to write statements and they made some requests relating to sales and delivery in connection with Chief Omokore, which we did.
“The transaction borders on supply of vehicles. As a customer of the company, we supplied vehicles to his company (Spog), on his order.
“When his request is made, we debit his account, but when payment is made, we credit his account accordingly”.
Jacobs later asked the witness if he could recognize the copy of the document that showed the supply of vehicles and the details, the witness answered in the affirmative. The document included the defendant’s personal statement of account and two invoices.
The admissibility of the documents when sought to be tendered by the prosecution was strongly objected to by counsel representing the fourth defendant, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN.
Oyetibo argued that “the tendering of Certificate of Identification, does not meet the requirements of Section 84 (4) paragraph ‘P’ as to the detailed particular of the device involved in the production of this document.
While urging the court to reject the document, Oyetibo argued that “they should have provided the serial number of the computer, adding that each computer must have a serial number and that is what distinguishes them”.
Responding, Jacobs argued that the documents met the requirements of the said section of the Evidence Act.
Credit: New Telegraph