Ex-Gov Ohakim denies son threatening prosecution witness
(Nigeria) An unimaginable drama, on Tuesday, 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, alleged how the accused’s son,
Emeka Ohakim, had allegedly went on the trail of the prosecution witness.
Meanwhile, the accused through his counsel denied the
allegation, saying that the story was unfounded and a ploy to destabilizing the
defence.
Ohakim is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission, EFCC, for allegedly making a cash payment of $2.290million 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 9p.m., on 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, for continuation of trial.
Comments
Post a Comment