Witness shows court how N200m was deposited into Daniel's firm's account

ABEOKUTA – Trial of the
former Ogun State governor,
Otunba Gbenga Daniel, formally
began yesterday at the Ogun
State High Court, Abeokuta,
with the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission,
EFCC, showing how cash were
allegedly deposited into one of
his company’s, Blue Chapel’s,
account.
This came as the trial judge,
Justice Olanrewaju Mabekoje,
reserved ruling on the
admissibility of a bank
statement tendered by
Daniel’s counsel, Professor
Taiwo Osipintan, SAN, to
deflate the evidence of the
prosecution witness, Mr. Ade
Babatunde.
Babatunde, a Business
Development Manager with
Skye Bank Plc, was the one
that gave a purported
graphic account of how fund
was deposited in Daniel
company’s account.
Daniel was re-arraigned on
April 15, 2012 by EFCC on a
38-count charge bordering on
breach of trust, fraudulent
conversion of public landed
property to personal use and
failure to declare his assets
truthfully and stealing over
N211 million.
When the matter came up,
counsel for EFCC, Mr. Rotimi
Jacobs, SAN, led Babatunde in
evidence over the alleged
illegal lodgments of some
money by some individuals into
Blue Chapel company account
belonging to the ex-
governor .
Babatunde, in his evidence,
who said Daniel’s company
opened its account with Skye
Bank in 2004 before he joined
the bank in 2007, said over
N200 million was transferred
into the company’s account,
stressing Daniel was the sole
signatory to the account, but,
did not lodge any money
himself either in cash or in
cheque into the account.
Jacobs had tendered a
certified true copy of Blue
Chapel statement of account
which was not objected to by
Daniel’s lead counsel and was
admitted as Exhibit 1 by the
court.
However, attempt by Osipitan
to tender from the Bar a
copy of the statement of
same account extracted from
the proof of evidence, which
he was said contradicted the
one tendered by EFCC was
resisted by EFCC’s counsel
saying, it was not admissible in
law.
Osipitan, while cross-
examining the witness, asked
Babatunde to compare a
statement of account in the
proof evidence and Exhibit 1,
insisting that there were
contradictions in the
statements of account.
He also argued before the
court that most of the money
allegedly deposited were
probably paid into the
company’s account by
customers.
Babatunde, however,
confirmed that the two
statements of account were
genuine, prompting Osipitan to
seek to tender it but the
EFCC counsel objected to it
on the ground that he did not
follow due process in
tendering documents.
According to Osiptan, ”the
document emanated from the
prosecution and it was the
basis with which he sought
the leave of court. So, if the
prosecution counsel now
comes around and said, it is
not genuine, it means he
forged the document.
Osipitan, in his submission,
urged the court to allow the
document, describing it as
public document.”
In his objection, Jacobs, who
quoted several authorities
including sections 84 and 89 of
the Evidence Act, described it
as computer- generated
document, which, according to
him, could not be admissible.
After listening to the parties,
the judge reserved ruling till
June 5, while fixing June 7,
2012 for continuation of trial.


Source: Vanguard Newspaper