Subpoena Drama Stalls Lamido Trial as EFCC, Defence Clash Over Witness
By Matthew Eloyi
Fresh tension emerged on Tuesday in the ongoing N1.35 billion money laundering trial of former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido, as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defence team engaged in a heated disagreement over a subpoenaed witness presented before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The dispute unfolded before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu shortly after proceedings resumed in the high-profile case involving Lamido, his two sons, Aminu and Mustapha, as well as Aminu Wada Abubakar and two companies — Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.
Lamido and the co-defendants are facing charges bordering on alleged money laundering involving N1.35 billion, accusations they have consistently denied.
The latest courtroom drama stemmed from an application by the defence, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Joe Agi, seeking the appearance of EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede or another competent official of the anti-graft agency to testify in their defence. The request followed the dismissal of the defendants’ no-case submission after the prosecution had closed its case, having called 17 witnesses.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, EFCC investigator Kayode Oyetunde appeared in court in response to the subpoena. However, the defence immediately sought an adjournment to enable it confer with the witness before proceeding.
The request was strongly opposed by EFCC counsel Chile Okoroma, SAN, who argued that there was no basis for delaying proceedings since all documents produced by the witness had already been filed before the court.
Justice Ojukwu declined the application for adjournment and warned that granting such a request could lead to the subpoena being struck out. Instead, she ordered a one-hour stand-down to allow the defence team interact with the witness.
But when proceedings resumed, a new twist emerged.
Under questioning, Oyetunde told the court that he was not a member of the investigative team that handled the case. He explained that he had merely been directed to retrieve documents requested under the subpoena.
The revelation prompted Agi to object to the witness’s suitability, insisting that he could not provide meaningful testimony in a matter about which he had no personal knowledge.
“The witness knows nothing about the case,” Agi argued, urging the court to compel the EFCC chairman to produce a more relevant official capable of addressing issues raised by the defence.
The prosecution, however, rejected the argument.
Okoroma maintained that the subpoena had been complied with since all requested documents were produced before the court. He further argued that the EFCC, as a corporate entity, could be represented by any authorised official and that the defence’s objections lacked merit.
“The subpoena is not sacrosanct,” he told the court, urging Justice Ojukwu to disregard the complaints raised by the defence.
Responding to submissions concerning one of the prosecution witnesses who had earlier testified, Justice Ojukwu advised the defence to formally apply for the witness to be recalled if it wished to question him further. She noted that subpoenas are typically reserved for situations where a witness refuses to attend court voluntarily.
In the end, the judge admitted all documents tendered through the subpoena as exhibits and adjourned the case until June 4 for the continuation of trial.
The proceedings underscored the procedural battles increasingly shaping the long-running case, as both sides continue to contest not only the evidence but also the manner in which it is presented before the court.