The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Umar, has explained why the embattled Nigeria;s Senate President, Bukola Saraki, must abandon Senate sittings and attend his trial everyday.
Umar, while overruling Kanu Agabi, Saraki’s lead counsel’s application for the trial not to hold when the Senate is having plenary, said the president of the Senate was the one facing trial not the Senate and then ruled that the trial would hold from 10am till noon on daily basis.
Umar also turned down Agabi’s request for the daily proceedings of the court, saying such request would overburden the tribunal’s registry.
The trial continued Monday with the examination of the first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas,who had earlier told the tribunal that Saraki’s wife, Toyin, and her parents Mr. and Mrs. Ojora, were the major promoters of a company, Tiny T Limited, involved in the alleged false asset declaration by Saraki.
“Chief Mrs. Ojualape Ojora, Toyin’s mother, Mrs. Toyin Saraki, Chief Ojora, Toyin’s father and Bukola Saraki, were the chief promoters of Tiny T,” according to Wetkas who had earlier told the tribunal that Tiny T Limited, was the company, whose name was used by Saraki to purchase an undeclared property.
The witness also told the tribunal that Saraki had bought three houses from the Presidential Implementation Committee on Sale of Government Properties, adding that it was a matter of policy for the committee to only sell one property in a given state to one buyer.
Wetkas further said Saraki made anticipatory declaration of assets, adding that the property bought from the committee was declared as No. 15 A and B on McDonald Street, Ikoyi on his Assets Declaration Form.
However, Wetkas said, when his investigative team wrote the committee for verification, it discovered that the property belonging to Saraki was only identified as only No. 15 – not No. 15 A and B as claimed.
He explained further that the building was having four flats inside it, and that 75 per cent of the payment for the said building, amounting to about N123 million was made from an account belonging to a certain company, identified as SkyView Properties, which was declared by Saraki as his company.
He added that the property was bought in the name of another company, Tiny T Limited, adding further that Saraki did not declare another property, located on No. 17 MacDonald Street, Lagos which he purchased at the cost of over N500 million, but paid separately from his companies, Carlisle and Skyview Properties.
Also according to Wetkas, Saraki failed to declare in his Assets Declaration Forms of 2003, 2007 and 2011 respectively, two assets located on No. 2481 and 2482 Cadastral Zone A06, which he purchased in 1993.
Wetkas further stated that his investigation team conducted an investigation into a company owned by Saraki and found a list of properties that yielded over N145 million annually for Saraki.
Shortly after the documents containing the various evidences were admitted as exhibits, Wetkas was cross-examined by the lead defence counsel, Kanu Agabi, during which Wetkas told the tribunal that there was no mention of Kwara Freedom Network’s petition, which had earlier been portrayed as the origin of Saraki’s investigation, nor was there a mention of any petition whatsoever in his statement.
He however stated that he had mentioned an intelligence report during his examination at the tribunal and told the tribunal that his team did not conduct a forensic investigation into a report by the Kwara Freedom Network, stressing that the said investigation was conducted by another team.
He also stated that he personally did not conduct a forensic investigation into the accounts of Kwara State related to the loss of funds by government, nor did he conduct any investigation into the pensions scheme of Kwara State.
Wetkas also told to the tribunal that his statement came on October 30, 2015 – more than a month after the charge was filed on September 14 last year.
Subsequently, the defence counsel said the statement of Wetkas could not have formed part of the proof of evidence and requested time to study the document before the cross-examination.
The case was adjourned to April 19 for continuation of cross examination, after heated debate,
Follow Us