The prosecution in the case against
former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs Godsday Orubebe opened its case
yesterday. Its first witness gave details of how the Code of Conduct
Bureau (CCB) discovered a property owned by the ex-minister in Abuja,
which he allegedly refused to disclose.
Orubebe is being tried at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on a one-count charge of false assets declaration.
The witness, Samuel Madojemu, an
official of the CCB, said Orubebe failed to declare the property on Plot
2057, Asokoro District, Abuja, while he was minister between 2007 and
2011.
Madojemu said his job includes “intelligence on observed breaches of the code and asset tracing investigation”.
He said Orubebe submitted five asset
declaration forms to the CCB between 2007 and 2011. Copies of the forms
were admitted by the CCT as exhibits.
On how the CCB discovered that the
ex-minister owned the property, the witness said the Certificate of
Occupancy (C/O) obtained from the Department of Land Administration of
the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) showed that it was issued to
Orubebe on April 10, 2011.
But Madojemu noted that the former minister failed to declare it when leaving office on May 29, 2011.
The witness was led in evidence by lead
prosecution lawyer Mohammad Diri, who is also the director of Public
Prosecution of the Federation.
The witness said Orubebe ignored the CCB’s invitation to him to make statements during investigation.
He said: “The defendant declared his assets to the bureau by virtue of his position as a public officer and as a minister.
“I was instructed to invite him to the
bureau for the purpose of obtaining his statement on allegations and
intelligence report that was being handled by the bureau concerning him.
“I invited him. He promised to respond
by sending his legal team. He also promised that he might come in
person, but he did not come.
“My lord, the bureau issued him with
Form CCB 1, which is the bureau’s asset declaration form and he made his
declaration between 2007 and 2011 – the period of investigation.
“The Code of Conduct Bureau issued the
defendant the Form CCB 1 five times. For those five times, he made his
asset declaration to the bureau.
“My lord, after we received the form, we
examined the form as part of our procedures’ investigation to ascertain
if there was over-declaration or under-declaration.
“We conducted intelligence assessment on
the declaration made by the defendant. We discovered that there were
some other plots or property that were traced to the defendant, Godsday
Orubebe.
“We conducted record examination by writing a letter to the Federal Capital Territory’s Department of Land Administration.”
He added: “My lord, in their response,
which was in writing, it was indicated that Plot 2057 Asokoro District
for which the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on April 10, 2011,
belonged to the defendant.
“We thereafter compared the information
arising from the response from the FCT Land Administration Department
with the information on asset declaration forms submitted to the bureau
between 2007 and 2011 and discovered that Plot 2057 Asokoro District
belonging to the defendant was not declared even as at May 29, 2011 when
he left office.
“Apart from the letter from FCT land
admin registry, we also received a Certified True Copy of the
Certificate of Occupancy in respect of Plot 2057 issued to the
defendant.
“We also received the CTC of the Right of Occupancy for that same Plot No 2057 issued to the defendant.
“Also received from the FCT land
administration registry, was a letter of authority, given to one
Engineer Rodney by the defendant authorising him to collect the
Certificate of Occupancy and the Right of Occupancy from the FCT land
registry. It was supported by the (international passport) page of the
defendant.”
“My lords, the question we wanted to ask
the defendant was why he did not declare plot 2057 for which the C of O
was issued to him on April 10, 2011. Whereas for the period under
consideration, 2007 to May 29, 2011, when he made those declarations, he
did not make the declaration of the property at the end of tenure asset
declaration form 2011. He acquired the property while he was still in
office.
“But my lord, he promised to send legal
representative to the bureau or come in person, but he did not come. We
afforded him the opportunity, but he did not come,” Madojemu said.
Orubebe’s lawyer Selekowei Larry (SAN)
objected to the move by Diri to tender copies of the C/O, the Right of
Occupancy (R/O), the letter of authority referred to by the witness,
which were attached to a letter dated February 18, by the Department of
Land Administration of the FCT.
Larry contended that the letter with the
documents attached to it was inadmissible under Section 83(3) of the
Evidence Act, because it was authored by “a person interested” while the
case against his client was pending in court.
The letter dated February 18 was
authored by Assistant State Counsel of the Lands Administration, Mrs.
Funke Audu, of the Federal Capital Territory.
“These are documents procured during the
pendency of this case. The letter is dated February 18, 2016, whereas
the suit commenced on October 18, 2015,” Larry said.
Tribunal Chairman Danladi Usman
overruled Larry and upheld Diri’s argument that Audu, who was an
employee of the Federal Capital Territory Administration, could never be
a party interested.
While the witness spoke, Orubebe, dressed in white traditional attire and a black hat, sat quietly in the accused box.
Further hearing has been fixed for April 14 for the defence to cross-examine the witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment