…Says evidence of wrongdoing was based on CAC document
A prosecution witness, Mr. Michael Agboro in the ongoing trial of former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele, on Monday admitted before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), that he did not interact or interview Emefiele’s wife over the ownership of a firm, Archtekon Nigeria Limited, linked to her.
The witness also could not confirm if any member of his team that investigated Emefiele on alleged procurement fraud did interview Emefiele’s wife,
He admitted that his evidence was based on documents obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) regarding Archtekon Nigeria Limited.
Agboro, who is the seventh Prosecution Witness (PW7) of the federal government stated this while answering questions from Emefiele’s lawyer, Mr Mathew Burkaa, SAN.
Emefiele is standing trial on an alleged 20-count amended charge, preferred against him by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
He was alleged to have engaged in criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretense and obtaining money by false pretense, when he served as the apex bank’s boss.
Among the allegations was that the former CBN boss forged a document titled: Re: Presidential Directive on Foreign Election Observer Missions dated January 26, 2023 with Ref No. SGF.43/L.01/201 and purported same to have emanated from the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (AGF).
Besides he is also accused of using his office as CBN governor to confer unfair and corrupt advantage on two companies; April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd.
At Monday’s proceedings, Burkaa continued with the cross examination of the witness, who said he could not recall if Emefiele during investigation repeated that his wife did not sign the CAC documents relating to Archtekon.
According to him he did not invite or interview Mrs Emefiele in respect of the CAC, adding that he was not “100 percent sure” if any of his team members did.
“Have you seen any report where it was said that the team invited or interviewed her?
Witness: No.
“So the evidence that the defendant awarded contract to his wife was based on CAC documents that have her signature without having any interaction or interview with her?
Witness: Yes.
When asked if the documents relating to the award of contracts to april1616 and Archtekon that he tendered before the court showed that the contracts were awarded to the firms with the less bid, he pointed out that “it was a legal requirement”
Also, when confronted with documents that showed the transactions between the CBN and the two firms, the witness acknowledged that the award of contracts to the two companies in question went through due process.
He also confirmed that the bids by April 1616 and Archtekon were the least in the various contracts awarded to them respectively.
When asked if Emefiele alone could award contracts all on his own, Agboro submitted that the contracts were approved by the defendant.
He also admitted that different officers at different levels acted on the contracts documents and that other officers did not award contracts to their relatives.
When asked if the defendant was a member of the Tender Board or procurement department, he said he does not know.
Answering if there is no difference between CBN and Emefiele, he said the difference is that the defendant was an Employee of CBN.
Meanwhile, the court turned down the objection of the federal government to the admissibility of document sought to be tendered by Emefiele relating to allegations bordering on forgery.
The document dated January 29, 2024, is a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a Forensic Report from the office of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, to a legal firm, Nnenna Ozogwu and Co.
Trial continues Tuesday with
Cross examination of the PW 7.