I’m not aware of complaint against Justice Ademola – Prosecution witness

Prosecution Witness 2, Ike Onuoha, in the ongoing trial of Justice Adeniyi Ademola and two others over alleged gratification has told an Abuja High Court that he was not aware whether there is a complaint or not against the judge.
Ademola; his wife, Omobowale; and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe Age, are being tried for receiving and offering gratification.
Onuoha, an operative of the Department of State Services had earlier during examination-in-chief led prosecution counsel, Segun Jegede, said he led a team of eight others officers in an operation to the judge’s house at 30b. Samuel Ogbemudia Crescent, Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja following an instruction by his immediate superior.
Onuoha added that his team was briefed based on a petition and information relating to incriminating items in the house of the said judge.
But when asked under cross examination, led by counsel to Justice Ademola, Onyechi Ikpeazu, the witness admitted that he did not see the petition and that he did not know whether there was a petition or not against the judge.
He further stated that after the search of the house of the judge, which was in the presence of Agi, his lawyer, and his cook, simply identified as Ken, the operatives recovered the sum of N54 million, $121,279, 4,400 euros, 80 pounds and 1,010 rupees.
He added that two pump action rifles were also recovered alongside 35 live cartridges.
However under cross examination, Onuoha admitted that there was no complaint of stolen or missing money to have warranted the recovery of the said amount from the judge’s residence.
He further admitted that his team forced the main door of the judge’s house opened using screw bar because the cook and the private security guard refused to open the door for them, even after he introduced himself and also told them their mission.
Under further cross examination, Ikpeazu had confronted the witness that there were bullets holes on the security door of the judge, but the witness answered in the negative.
When also asked whether the judge searched his body before he commenced the search on the house, the witness answered no, but however added that the cook searched him.
Onuoha also admitted that he did not see Olabowale Ademola, who is the second defendant in the matter, in the house on the said day and that none of her property was part of things recovered from the house.
While being cross examined by Jeff Njikonye, the counsel to Agi, who is the third defendant, the witness admitted that he knew from the media that the DSS is pursuing a sensitive case against former National Security Adviser, retired Colonel Sambo Dasuki, and leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.
When asked whether he knew that Justice Ademola gave an order against the DSS to release Dasuki from its custody after three months in detention without a charge, the witness said it was correct.
According to Njikonye: “I put it to you that the courageous ruling of the first defendant was his offence against the DSS.”
The witness however said that he was not aware of such.
Earlier, the PW 1, Ifeoma Ofonagoro, who is a sales representative with Coscharis Motors Limited, while being cross examined, admitted that the company did not have any transaction with Justice Ademola, but Ademide, who is the son to the judge.
Ofonagor also admitted that Ademide paid for the licensing of the car, which the company did for him, and he also insured the car in his personal name.
She also added that she had followed Ademide up on the maintenance of the car, especially when he had a minor accident with the car.
After calling two witnesses, the prosecution prayed for an adjournment till Wednesday to bring two more witnesses.
The defence however opposed the application for adjournment on the ground that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act provided for a day to day trial and that they are ready to continue with the trial.
Responding, the prosecution informed the court that some of his witnesses have complained that they are being threatened by unknown persons and because of that the prosecution could not have access to them.
In a short ruling, the court adjourned till Wednesday at the instance of the prosecution.