The charge reads that, “You Sa’ad Ahmed Madaki sometimes in 2011 at Kano within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with intent to defraud did obtained the sum of N200,000,000 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) from one Auwal Abdulkadir on the pretext that you would produce industrial plastic and sack packaging machinery and equipment for the said Auwal Abdulkadir which pretense you knew to be false and you thereby committed an offense contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act”.
After listening to the charge the defendant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial with the prosecution calling the nominal complainant as witness.
According to the complainant who was led into evidence by the prosecution counsel, N.K Ukoha, the defendant induced him to part with the sum of N200,000,000 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) under the pretext that the money was for the establishment of Polythene Bag Making Company. He disclosed to the court that the defendant collected the money from him in tranches between 2000 and 2011.
The second prosecuting witness, an operative of the commission who is the investigation officer of the case, told the court that the defendant was transferred to the Commission by the Department of State Services who arrested for alleged terrorist activities. The DSS released the defendant to the commission upon realizing that his activities verged on financial crimes.
PW2 further informed the court that Upon receipt of the case, the case was assigned to his team and the team immediately swung into action by inviting the complainant, Auwalu Abdulkadir who reported and gave statement.
The defendant also volunteered statement and reduced same into writing. The witness revealed that on conclusion of their investigation, it was discovered that the defendant fraudulently obtained the sum of N200,000,000 from the complainant under the pretext that the money was for the establishment of Polythene Bag Making Company.
Prosecution counsel N.K Ukoha showed the witness the DSS referral letter and the statements made by both complainant and the defendant at the EFCC and DSS respectively for identification. The witness identified same and Ukoha applied to tender same in evidence.
The defence counsel objected to the admissibility of the statement. He argued that they were not made voluntarily but under duress.
Ukoha in his response said the statement were not even confessional , that it is only when statements are confessional that the admissibility issue could be raised.
The court ruled that the referral letter from DSS was not objected to and since it was attached with the statement of the defendant as well as the nominal complainant’s, both documents were admitted into evidence and marked exhibit P1.
In respect of the statement made to the EFCC, Justice Daggard ordered for a conduct of trial within trial and adjourned the matter to May 15th 2017 for continuation of trial.
