Crime

Alleged false asset declaration: Uncertainty returns to NASS

Published

9 years ago

June 7, 2017

As CCT considers Saraki’s no-case submission

There are indications that uncertainty is returning to the National Assembly as the prosecution of the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal gets to an advanced stage.

National Daily observed that though, the leadership tussle in the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly may have been relatively overcome, the apprehension that the ruling of the CCT may renew another round of leadership contention if the Tribunal indicts the Senate President over allegations false declaration of assets to which Counsel to the Senate President has made a no-case submission before the trial judge.

It was gathered that the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, on Thursday, closed its case in the trial of Senate President Saraki in a 18 counts charge of false asset declaration, allegation made by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) which, thereafter, proceeded to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for prosecution.

The prosecution of the Senate President had resumed on May 4 after three consecutive adjournments on the request of the prosecution counsel.

ALSO SEE: APC accuses APDA of stolen logo

The prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs,was aid to have informed the tribunal of the Federal Government’s decision to close its case after the last witness, Bayo Dauda, was cross-examined by the defense counsel, Paul Erokoro.

The prosecution presented four witnesses in all.

Erokoro had informed the Tribunal of his client’s intention to make a no-case submission on the charges, contending that no substantive case has been made against his client to warrant defense.

Saraki’s counsel requested the tribunal to provide the details of its proceedings, to guide the defense while making its application for no-case submissiontomorrow, Thursday. He had further requested more time from the tribunal to properly study the testimonies.

Jacobs, however, countered Erokoro, arguing that the defense counsel ought to have been fully guided before making a no-case submission.

He contended that the request for time was unnecessary since the defense team had already reached its conclusion, appealing to the tribunal to specify the duration of time in which the defense would be expected to return to the tribunal for its application.

The tribunal had fixed June 8 for adoption of written addresses.