Court Fixes Feb 1 To Rule On Competency Of Witness To Testify Against Uzor Kalu

Court Fixes Feb 1 To Rule On Competency Of Witness To Testify Against Uzor Kalu

Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos will on February 1 decide whether or not a lawyer, Kingsley Ekwem is competent to testify as a prosecution witness in the on-going trial of a former governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu and two others over alleged N3.2 billion fraud. 

Ekwem, who was summoned by the court to come and testify in the trial told the judge in an application he filed that he is not a compelling witness in the case.

He rather urged Justice Idris to set aside the summons served on him by the EFCC to compel him to testify in the matter.

The EFCC is prosecuting Kalu, his Commissioner for Finance, Udeogu, and his company, Slok Nigeria Limited on an amended 34 count charge of N3.2 billion fraud.

They were alleged to have used the following banks to perpetrate the alleged fraud, Manny Bank, Spring Bank Plc,( now Heritage Bank), the defunct Standard Trust Bank, now United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) and Fin Land Bank, now First City Monument Bank (FCMB).

They however all pleaded not guilty to the charge.

While arguing his motion on Tuesday, the lawyer maintained that he would not be able to testify in the matter owing to the existing relationship between his chambers and the third defendant in the case (Slok Nigeria Limited). 

He said: "On Monday evening, a witness' summons was served on me at the behest of the prosecution to come and testify in respect of a document issued from our chambers sometimes in 2004. 

"I am urging the court to set aside the summons on the ground that I am not a compellable witness to testify on issues that borders on professional communication between our law firm and the third defendant. 

"I am not a compellable witness because it could lead to a breach of professional communication between our law firm and the third defendant. 

"I am not permitted by law to testify except and unless the third defendant expressly consent that I should do so". 

Ekwem cited Section 192 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 as well as Rule 19 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conducts for Legal Practitioners 2007 to buttress his points. 

In his response, EFCC's counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) said the motion was based on mere apprehension that was not founded in law. 

Jacobs insisted that the lawyer can only raised any objection he has when he was to be put on oath while inside the witness box. 

"The lawyer ought to enter the witness box to obey the court's order. It is only when he is to be put on oath that he can raise his objection. It is at this point that we can address the court on whether or not he is a competent and compellable witness", he said. 

The silk noted that apart from the fact that the lawyer has already made statement to the EFCC, the document upon which he is to be examined is already an exhibit before the court.

In his submissions on the issue, Kalu's lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN) urged the court to consider Sections 185 and 192 (1) of the Evidence Act in granting the motion. 

He argued that the EFCC cannot put the lawyer in the witness box because the prosecution witness through which the document was tendered as an exhibit by the commission had informed the court that it was obtained through a search warrant. 

The silk said it was curious that despite the fact that the document was recovered in the course of investigation by the EFCC since 2004, the commission has not gone to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to substantiate its claims that Dr. Kalu was a Director at Slok Nigeria Ltd., while serving as Abia State Governor. 

"I urged the court not to compel the applicant to testify to prevent the EFCC's ulterior motive of incriminating the first defendant (Dr. Kalu) from becoming a reality", the silk said. 

Other defence lawyers also aligned themselves with the submissions of Chief Awa Kalu (SAN). 

In particular, Slok's lawyer, K. C. Nwofo (SAN) while urging the court to grant the motion said: "Slok has not consented to the lawyer being called to testify in the matter".