A Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday fixed April 28 for adoption of final addresses in a trial-within-trial of ex-Acting Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA); Haruna Jauro.
Jauro is standing trial alongside Dauda Bawa and Thlumbau Enterprises Ltd on 19 counts bordering on N304.1 million fraud.
They were arraigned on April 12, 2016 and had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Jauro assumed leadership NIMASA after the erstwhile DG, Akpobolokemi, who is also currently facing three different fraud charges.
The court had admitted them to bails in the sum of N5 million each with two sureties each in like sum.
In February, the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, had called his first witness, Mr Orji Chukwuma, who had testified how monies were allegedly converted by the accused.
Oyedepo sought to tender a written statement of the accused as evidence in court, but was opposed by the defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo, who argued that the statements were not voluntarily obtained.
Ojo urged the court to order a trial-within-trial to determine if the statements were voluntarily obtained by the commission.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun consequently ordered a trial-within-trial.
Led in his evidence by the defence counsel, Jauro had told the court that in July 2015, a team of operatives from the EFCC led by one Mr Ghali, visited NIMASA, while he acted as DG.
He said the operatives told him that they were at NIMASA to investigate its activities, and further inquired from him if he was a substantive or acting DG.
He said he told the operatives that he was in acting capacity, adding that the operatives then asked if he would like to be confirmed as DG.
“I replied Yes and the leader then told me that he will be happy if I am confirmed as substantive DG, adding that my maximum cooperation will be needed.
“He then told me that they were in NIMASA to investigate the former DG (Akpobolokemi) and then asked me about my involvement in the running of the agency.
“I told him my involvement includes employment of staff, procurement procedures, payment procedures, budget proposals among others.
“After some days, he came back to me and said that he had discovered that all I told him about my activities in NIMASA were correct and that I had nothing to hide.
“He then added that EFCC will now make me a witness against the ex-DG,” he said.
The accused also told the court that for him, the good news ended there as the whole story changed after he got to the EFCC for interrogation.
He said at the commission, he was given an asset declaration form which he filled, while his lawyer was not allowed access to the interrogation table.
According to him, after visiting the commission several times, he was thereafter informed that “order” from Abuja says he should be detained.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor (Oyedepo) posed the following questions:
“You were appointed in acting capacity as DG of NIMASA by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and also removed by same authority right?
Jauro: “yes”
Oyedepo: “So it will be right to say the EFCC is not in any position to determine your appointment?”
Jauro: “Well, yes”
Oyedepo then asked: “In your statement to the EFCC, the columns for date, occupation, address and other details were filled personally by you, right?
Jauro answered in the affirmative.
The prosecutor then asked whether during his interrogation at the EFCC, he was forced to make admissions; and the accused replied “No”.
Jauro also said that in his statement to the commission, he did not admit committing any crime.
Oyedepo asked again:“During interrogation anytime you reply, “I cannot remember”, were you forced to remember anything? Jauro again replied “No”.
After cross-examination, Justice Olatoregun fixed April 28 for adoption of final written addresses.
The EFCC accused Jauro and others of conspiring to defraud NIMASA to the tune of N304.1 million between January 2014 and September 2015.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the accused converted the money to their private use, an offence which it said contravened the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.
Discussion about this post