Drama as CCT chairman orders Saraki’s lawyer out of court

There was a mild drama on Thursday at the Code of Conduct Tribunal sitting in Abuja as the Chairman, Justice Danladi Umar, ordered Raphael Oluyede, a counsel to the President of the Senate, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, out of the court room.
Saraki is standing trial before the tribunal on a 13-count charge bothering on false asset declaration.
Oluyede had however on Wednesday filed an application seeking the disqualification of the Chairman of the tribunal from further presiding over the trial on ground of alleged bias.
At the resumption of hearing on Thursday, Oluyede had sought to move his application.
The prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), however, interjected and told the tribunal that Oluyede had tried to serve him the previous day but he refused to accept it and that even the lead counsel to Saraki, Kanu Agabi (SAN), was not aware of the application.
Jacobs also told the court that Oluyede is not part of the defence team and that the application is not ripe for hearing.
Umar held that he was not going to entertain the application, adding that it was “utter rubbish” coming from a “busy body”.
Oluyede however responded that he has the right to file an application and address the court on it.
Umar at that point shut him down and asked him to sit down.
This, however, led to an altercation between the chairman of the tribunal and Oluyede.
It was at that point that Umar ordered that the police should take Oluyede out of the court room.
However, Jacobs pleaded with the tribunal.
Agabi later told the tribunal that Oluyede is a member of the defence team and the he (Agabi) was aware of the application.
He however apologized to the tribunal.
After the mild drama, the business of the day started.
Another member of the defence team, Paul Usoro (SAN), cross examined the Prosecution Witness 1, Michael Wetkas, on Count 12 of the charge.
Count 12 had alleged that Saraki operated a bank account outside Nigeria where he transferred $3.4 million to America Express Europe Limited for onward transfer to his card account with America Express Bank, New York.
When asked if count 12 is the same as count 11, which also accused Saraki of operating a foreign account, Wetkas answered in the affirmative.
He told the tribunal that the cover letter, which the EFCC wrote to Guarantee Trust Bank Plc in exhibit 8, covers the issues raised in counts 11 and 12.
When asked to point out the transaction in his exhibit that relates to count 12, he said it was the summation of the total transfer of the said account.
Usoro further asked Wetkas to point out the transactions in the document.
Wetkas responded that such will require him to run through the entire document.
When confronted with the figures, Wetkas said they are charges on the account and did not constitute the final figure of $3.4 million.
On the figures pointed out to him, Wetkas said he could confirm that they form part of the total sum until it is computed again.
He however admitted that besides three huge transfer, other figures in the account were just charges, but that in the cause of his work, he was required to give a summation of all the transactions in his report.
Wetkas then started listing out the transfers, but he was cut short by Umar on the ground that such would waste the time of the tribunal as they already has a copy of the exhibit.
Usoro then interjected asking the panel to allow him establish his case in the interest of justice.
Speaking further, Wetkas stated that the strength of the position of the investigation team is more on the statement of account, which showed a clear narration of the transaction in respect to the transfer to the America Express Europe Limited.
He added that they investigated the money laundering allegation.
As the cross examination was going on, Agabi asked for a week for adjournment to enable them study the amended charge and other documents that have been tendered.
Jacobs, however, opposed the request, arguing that a week is too long and that the documents have been with them for a while.
Delivering a short ruling, the tribunal refused the application for a one-week adjournment.
It adjourned to April 27 for continuation of cross examination.