EFCC accuses Ayo Fayose’s lawyers of “tampering”

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Friday, October 25th accused the defence counsel in the ongoing trial of former Governor of Ekiti Ayodele Fayose of ”tampering” with its key witnesses.

EFCC Counsel, Rotimi Jacobs made the statement at the resumed trial of Fayose facing charges bordering on N6.9billion fraud in a Federal High Court in Lagos. Jacobs was responding to an application by the team of defence counsel, Ola Olanipekun, SAN and Olalekan Ojo, challenging the competence of a proposed third witness sought to be sworn on oath.

The EFCC charged Fayose with alleged N6.9 billion fraud and money laundering charges. He was first arraigned on Oct. 22. 2018, before Justice Mojisola Olatotegun, alongside his company, Spotless Investment Ltd, on 11 counts bordering on fraud and money laundering offences.

He had pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail on Oct. 24, 2018, in the sum of N50 million with sureties in like sum. The defendant was subsequently re-arraigned before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, on July 2, after the case was withdrawn from Olatoregun, following EFCC’s petition. He had also pleaded not guilty to the charges and was allowed to continue on the earlier bail granted, while the case was adjourned for trial.

At the last adjourned date on Oct. 21, EFCC called its first witness Lawrence Akande, a Zonal Head of a second-generation Bank covering South-West one. On Oct. 22, the commission had also called its second witness Mr. Abiodun Oshode from the same Bank Zonal Head covering South-West two. Both witnesses had concluded their evidence, were cross-examined and discharged.

On Friday, EFCC called its third witness, Johnson Abidakun, who is Head of Operations of the Bank Ado-Ekiti branch. The witness entered the box and was about to be sworn on oath when the first defence counsel (Olanipekun) raised objection supported by Ojo. The defence had accused the EFCC of “prosecutorial misconduct” because they (defence) had sought leave of court to study the proof of evidence of the witness and had noticed he made judicial statements.

The case was consequently adjourned until November 28 by noon and November 29 by 9 a.m. for ruling and continuation of trial.