EFCC presents 15th Witness in Fayose’s 6.9 billion naira Fraud Trial
On Thursday, Ayodele Fayose, the former governor of Ekiti state, was the fifteenth witness called by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in his money laundering trial.
The prosecution, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), conducted the witness, Mr Joseph Machleb, through an examination
The non-English-speaking witness informed the court during his chief examination on Thursday that he was a resident of Akure, Ondo State.
He stated in court that he is a mechanic for Samchase Nigeria Ltd., a construction company.
He replied in the affirmative when asked if he was aware of a business named JJ Technical Services Ltd.
He informed the court that he and his older brother had jointly incorporated the business.
When quizzed on whether the company was involved in buying property, he said, “I don’t know anything about that.
“I didn’t authorise Michelle to buy property; I only told him to look for contracts for the company.”
During cross-examination by the defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), the witness told the court that he did not authorise in writing, one Azeez Michelle to execute any transaction for the company, JJ Technical Services.
Additionally, he informed the court that Azeez Michelle had been given control of the company to pursue business negotiations.
In response to a question concerning the company’s involvement in real estate purchases, he stated, “I do not know of that.”
Michelle was not given my approval to purchase real estate; I merely gave him instructions to get contracts for the business.
The witness informed the court during cross-examination by Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), the defence attorney, that he had not given written consent for Azeez Michelle to complete any transaction on behalf of JJ Technical Services.
Ojo then enquired, “Will you remember if I give you any documentation proving your approval of the same?”In response, the witness said, “Maybe I will.”
Ojo then requested, in accordance with Section 239 of the Evidence Act, that a document dated Nov. 20, 2013, be provided to the witness in order to refresh his recollection.
Prosecutor made no objections. Upon being presented with the document, the witness recognised and acknowledged having signed it.
When the defence attorney presented the evidence to the court, it was accepted and designated as Exhibit A20. During additional cross-examination by Ojo, the witness informed the court that Azeez Michelle had been given permission by JJ Technical Services to sign and carry out correspondence, documents, and orders on the company’s behalf.
The witness said, “No, I don’t know,” in response to the question of whether he was aware that Michelle had completed numerous transactions on the company’s behalf based only on Exhibit A20.
Calling for Exhibits MM1 and 2, the defence attorney questioned the witness about whether this was the first time he had ever seen the documents. “Once these issues arise,” the witness retorted.
He continued by saying that he had not received any documents and that his brother had merely called to let him know that there was an issue with the business.
Ojo then enquired, “Were you concerned and wanted your company to be free of any issues when your brother informed you that there was a problem in the company”? “Of course,” was the witness’s response.
Additionally, the witness attested to the court that his corporation lawfully carries out its operations or tasks, as stated by the defence attorneys.
Furthermore,he testified in court that his employer never contacted the aforementioned Michelle via letter or memo to enquire about his knowledge of the documents MM1 and 2.
Ojo asked the witness to turn to face the first defendant in the dock and report to the court any prior sightings of the defendant.
In response, the witness said, “Yes, I see him on TV.” Also, he attested to knowing that Fayose had previously served as governor of Ekiti.
“I suggest to you that both you and your company had no business with him during his tenure as governor,” the defence attorney then questioned.
In response, the witness said, “No, I never, J J never.”
Asked whether the defendant had ever travelled to see his relatives in Lebanon, the witness said, “I’m not sure.”
The witness denied that Michelle had been informing him about actions taken in relation to the document.
Additionally, the witness denied knowing Biodun Agbele or doing business with him.
The witness said that he did remember visiting the EFCC when Ojo subsequently asked him if he did.
The witness responded as follows when questioned whether the commission had shown him any documentation pertaining to any transaction involving his company and either the first defendant or his company and Biodun Agbele:
“They only presented me with one agreement.”
Under cross-examination by Mr. Uchenna Njoku (SAN), the first defence attorney, the witness attested to the fact that his employer had given Michelle permission to represent it on the basis of confidence and trust.
He informed the court that, as of yet, he had not discovered any cause to question Michelle’s moral character in representing the business. However, the judge postponed the trial until October 18 in order to continue it.
The EFCC is prosecuting Fayose on allegations of N6.9 billion in fraud and money laundering.
On October 22, 2018, he and his firm,Spotless Investment Ltd., were initially charged before Justice Mojisola Olatotegun on 11 counts related to money laundering and fraud.
On October 24, 2018, he was granted bail in the amount of N50 million with sureties in the same amount after entering a not guilty plea to the allegations.
On July 2, 2019, however, the defendant was re-arrested before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke after the EFCC’s petition caused Justice Olatoregun to abandon the case.
In Addition, he entered a not guilty plea to the charges and was permitted to remain free on the previously set bond amount while the matter was put on hold for trial.
Since then, the commission has presented its case to Justice Aneke and has continued to call witnesses.
According to the commission, the money was a portion of the proceeds from the crime. Since then, the EFCC has begun its case before Aneke and is one of the main witnesses.
The panel claims that on June 17, 2014, Fayose and a man named Abiodun Agbele obtained N1.2 billion to finance his bid for the governorship of Ekiti.
According to the commission, the money was a portion of the proceeds from the crime. Additionally, it was reported that Fayose received a five million dollar cash payment directly from Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro, the then-minister of state for defence, bypassing any financial institutions.
The EFCC also alleged that the former governor retained N300 million in his bank account and took control of the aggregate sums of about N622 million, which formed part of the crime proceeds.
It added that Fayose procured De Privateer Ltd. and Still Earth Ltd. to retain aggregate sums of N851 million, which formed part of crime proceeds.
The commission also accused Fayose of using about N1.6 billion in crime proceeds to acquire property in Lagos and Abuja.
The former governor also allegedly used N200 million in crime proceeds to acquire a property in Abuja in the name of his elder sister, Moji Oladeji.
The alleged offences contravene Sections 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 16(2)(b), 16(d), and 18(c) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011
Additionally, according to the EFCC, the former governor kept N300 million in his bank account and assumed possession of the total amounts, or roughly N622 million, which were a portion of the proceeds from the crime.
It further stated that N851 million in total, which was a portion of the proceeds from crime, was obtained by Fayose for the retention of De Privateer Ltd. and Still Earth Ltd.
The commission further charged Fayose with purchasing real estate in Lagos and Abuja with profits from crimes totalling almost N1.6 billion.
Moreover it is said that the former governor purchased an Abuja home in the name of his older sister, Moji Oladeji, using N200 million in earnings from criminal activity. Sections 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 16(2)(b), 16(d), and 18(c) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 are violated by the accused acts.
