Home » Headline » Did the CCB tamper with Saraki’s asset declaration form to nail him?
Did the CCB tamper with Saraki’s asset declaration form to nail him?

Did the CCB tamper with Saraki’s asset declaration form to nail him?

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to substantiate allegations of anticipatory acquisition of property against the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki at his ongoing trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

The property in contention is the crux of one of the charges by the Federal Government, claiming that the defendant, Bukola Saraki entered in his 2003 Assets Declaration Form, a property he later bought in 2006.

However, EFCC lead investigator and prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas who is currently under cross examination on Tuesday, failed to convince the Tribunal that Saraki did anticipatory buying following evidences that No 15 MacDonald Street, Ikoyi, Lagos State was bided for by different companies and persons in a rigorous, transparent process which the defendant could not have possibly imagined, let alone anticipate.

According to the Defense Counsel, Paul Erokoro (SAN), “Mr Wetkas, can you tell us how the defendant knew in 2003 what properties he would buy in 2006?”

Wetkas on his part could not through facts and documents prove that there was any anticipatory acquisition by Saraki. In a response to a question by the Defense Counsel, Erokoro, Wetkas admitted that it was inhumanly possible for the defendant or any human being whatsoever to be able to determine the exact property they were going to acquire at a later time in the future as was in this case of the Ikoyi property.

Although the lead prosecutor, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) and the CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar tried to come to the rescue of Wetkas, contradictory claims and lack of evidence to substantiate the charge rendered their intervention immaterial.

Consequently, the lawyer to Saraki has now raised a new ground that his assets declaration form was likely tampered with at the CCB: “Logic tells us that exhibit 1 has been tampered with”, he said. The development threw the court into palpable suspense leading to Saraki’s lead counsel Kanu Agabi SAN calling for adjournment.From unfolding developments, the case of tampered evidence may be a new ground for the court to determine and spend time on in the days ahead.Excerpts from the Court proceedings

#CCT Trial:Irokoro: it is very very obvious that exhibit 1 could not have been written in 2013 because of its content. Do you agree?
Rotimi intercepts
The prosecution tendered all exhibits. No defendant has made no comment. The witness should answer all our questions

Arguments erupt!
Serious argument btw Rotimi and Erokoro
Irokoro: You tendered exhibit 1 saying its… And I said that document couldn’t have been made in 2013. Do you agree?
Irokoro: You tendered exhibit 1 saying its… And I said that document couldn’t have been made in 2013. Do you agree?
Rotimi intercepted to help confused wektas
Wetkas: I’m not the one that signed the declaration form. It’s the defendant (in 2003)
Danladi reads that Wetkas said “the declaration hasn’t been tampered.” Irokoro called his attention immediately that Wetkas never said so.

Danladi read to him again and Wetkas withdrawn such part of the statement

IT WAS NOT TAMPERED!
Irokoro: wasn’t all these why you didn’t show exhibit 1 to the defendant so that he won’t see it and say this isn’t what I signed!
Rotimi intercepted
Rotimi: cross-examination isn’t to harass anybody
Danladi asked Wetkas u wasn’t there,Wetkas yes..note taking by Danladi
Wetkas asked another vital question again. He referred it to another team of investigators. “I wasn’t there,” he said.

Danladi repeated that statement (I wasn’t there) while filling his divine book.

Irokoro: thank you my lord for quoting that statement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: