Alleged $12m fraud: My BDC coy duly registered with CAC, EFCC witness tells court

Suleiman Ciroma, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s witness, on Friday, said his company, Funnacle BDC Ltd, was duly registered with Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

Ciroma, the 1st prosecution witness (PW-1) in the ongoing trial of Halima Buba, the Managing Director, SunTrust Bank, and her co-defendant, told Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

He spoke while being cross examined by 1st defendant (Buba)’s counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN.

The witness admitted that as at 2021, he was a Bureau De Change (BDC) operator.

He said Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of the bank, are not directors in his company.

Ciroma, who had earlier told the court that he was no longer in the business of BDC, admitted that Funnacle BDC Ltd had not been wound up in accordance with Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).

He said he met Aisha Achimugu in 2021 at SunTrust Bank.

The PW-1 admitted that shortly after he met Achimugu in 2021, she (Achimugu) gave him the sum of 1.8 million US dollars for swapping into naira and credited her in naira equivalent.

He said the money was given to him in tranches.

The witness confirmed that he was not at the Lagos branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10, March 13, March 14, March 20 and March 24.

Similarly, he confirmed that he was not at the Abuja branch of SunTrust Bank on March 10

He told the court that he was invited by the EFCC between April 11 or April 12 in respect of the transactions and that he was released same day.

He said he made about two to three extra-judicial statements at the anti-graft agency’s office and the said statements were signed by him.

He admitted the statements formed part of the charge before the court.

However, when Usman sought to take Ciroma on the charge, EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, objected.

Usman, therefore, sought to tendered the certified true copy (CTC) of the charge before Justice Nwite and Oyedepo equally opposed the move.

The commission’s lawyer contended that Pages 10 to 12 of the charge are letters of investigation of EFCC.

He submitted that the officer that could certify the document was the EFCC officer in whose custody the primary evidence can be seen and inspected upon the payment of the prescribed fee.

“I submit that, that document, having been certified by EFCC or tendered from the Bar, is inadmissible,” he said.

The lawyer, who said Pages 32 to 83 are extra judicial statements of the defendants volunteered to EFCC as well as other witnesses called in the proceedings, said only the EFCC can certify them.

He argued that extra judicial statements of various witnesses can only be tendered upon the satisfaction of the condition enunciated by Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

“I will not be asking the court to reject the document but I urge your lordship to decline the admissibility,” he said.

Usman, however, disagreed with Oyedepo’s submission.

He argued that cases cited by the EFCC lawyer were not applicable in the instant case.

According to him, the facts and circumstances are different.

“The document sought to be tendered was fully paid by the applicant with a receipt fully endorsed by the Federal High Court.

Besides, he said Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) is in line with their argument.

“The officer in custody of these documents are registrar of Federal High Court and payment made and receipt endorsed.

“Therefore, we have fully complied,” he said.

According to him, my learner brother has systematically made a few attempts to divorce the document into parts but not successful.

“Reasons being that what is sought to be tendered is a charge filed by them, and not charge sheet.

“He attempted to segmentise written statements, documents from SunTrust Bank, document from Immigration, etc

“The Supreme Court in 2007 decision responded to such act by saying, “Haba!”

“The law is settled upon which there is no radical departure that once a document is admissible, its attachment is automatically become admissible in law,” he said, citing the apex court previous case.

His words: “What we seek to tender is the charge filed by the prosecution. Therefore, they are not separate documents and can never be construe so.”

The senior lawyer argued that once a document had been admitted as exhibit, other documents attached to it would formed part of the exhibit.

“Is argument is made in comatose,” he said.

“It is not a requirement of the law that every page must be certified in line with Section 104

“What we seek to tender, the original copy is before my lord and what we seek to tender is a CTC

“Have we run foe of the law in tendering this charge? The answer is no.

“That is why the prosecution is saying don’t reject and don’t admit,” he said, accusing the prosecution of sitting on the fence in their argument.

According to him, it is a strange legal principle.

“The charge sought to be tendered is their charge. So what are they running from?

“It is not possible to blow air from your mouth and one is hot and one is cold.”

Usman prayed the court to dismiss EFCC’s argument.

Earlier, Justice Nwite discoubtenaced the statement which was written in Hausa language through which Oyedepo had wanted the witness to give evidence.

The judge held that the court cannot be an adjudicator and a translator at the same time, and that the witness, having not been an expert cannot give his opinion on the statement.

The ruling followed the objection raised by counsel to Buba and lawyer to Mbagwu, M.S. Ibrahim, SAN.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until Oct. 13, Oct. 16 and Oct 17 for ruling and continuation of trial.

Buba and her co-defendant, Innocent Mbagwu, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of SunTrust Bank, are being prosecuted on money laundering offences to the tune of $12 million.

The duo, in a six-count charge, was alleged to have aided high-value cash transactions without routing them through a financial institution.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.

The defendants were, on June 13, arraigned by the anti-graft agency.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, and admitted to a N100 million bail with one surety, each in like sum.

About The Author