No document showed NIMASA contract was executed , says EFCC witness

 A prosecutor for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Ahmed, Wednesday told a Federal High Court, Lagos that there were no documents showing whether the contracts, which were alleged to have been split were indeed executed when former Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director-General, Raymond Omatseye was in charge.
   Ahmed was testifying before Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia in the trial of Omatseye who was re-arraigned by the EFCC on an amended 27-count charge bordering on contract scam.
   The court also heard that the investigation of alleged contract scam at NIMASA was inconclusive.
   Omatseye pleaded not guilty to all the counts.
   His re-arraignment was due to the transfer of the former trial judge, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.
   The accused person was charged with alleged illegal transfer of the agency’s fund and contract splitting estimated at over N1.5 billion.
   During cross-examination by defence counsel Olusina Sofola (SAN), Ahmed said he asked for the performance documents, but was not given.
   He said: “I made request for the documents orally from the people who made statements. I also requested for the documents from the contractors.”
   The witness said he was therefore unable to determine the performance of the contracts allegedly awarded by Omatseye.
   “According to statements made by the accused person and the contractors, the items were supplied. The contractors said the contract was performed. I requested for documents showing performance of the contracts but was not given. Because the documents were not available, I wasn’t able to confirm the contract performance,” he said.
   Asked by Sofola if he stated his inability to confirm the contract performance in his statement before the court, the witness said: “It’s not everything I did in the course of my investigation that is contained in my statement.”
   The EFCC witness, however explained that the materials supplied to NIMASA were almost the same thing and ought to have been awarded to a single contractor, adding that the contracts were allegedly split to come within the approved threshold for management approval.
   According to him, the contracts, which were “separated to fall within the threshold”, ought to have gone to the Tenders Board.
   Counsel to EFCC, Godwin Obla (SAN) objected severally to Sofola’s cross-examination, saying the defence counsel was attempting to make the witness alter his written statement.
   “The Evidence Act is clear. Oral evidence cannot alter a documentary evidence before the court,” he said.
   But Sofola said he was asking the questions to “get to the truth,” but the judge asked him to rephrase some of his questions.
   Before Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia adjourned to December 3 for continuation of hearing, Obla said he has four more witnesses to call before closing his case.

- The Guardian

loading...