•didn’t interview wife, brother-in-law on ownership of Archtekon firm
By Vivian Okejeme, Abuja
A 7th prosecution witness, Mr Michael Agboro, in the trial of former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele, on Monday, said did not confer any unfair, corrupt advantage on himself in the award of contracts to some companies, during his tenure at the Central bank.
The witness was testifying before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), as an investigator with the Independent, Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).
At Monday’s proceedings, the federal government in trying to establish its charge called on its
Agboro led in evidence, by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN tendered several documents including company registration documents and award as well as payments for contract relating to the two forms.
In his evidence the investigator claimed that Emefiele conferred unfair and corrupt advantage in the award of contracts to April 1616 and Archtekon because documents his team, comprising of persons drawn from the ICPC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Department of State Service (DSS), showed that while a Director of April 1616, Mrs Saadatu Yaro, is a Public Officer, with the CBN, Emefiele’s wife, Margaret Omoyile and his brother-in-law, Mac Congo are directors in Architekon.
However, during cross examination by Emefiele’s lawyer, Mr Mathew Burkaa, SAN, the witness when asked whether the defendant conferred unfair and corrupt advantage on himself, answered that, “he conferred on Saadatu Ramalan Yaro, who is a Public Officer working under him. He also conferred on his wife and brother-in-law.
Question: So he did not confer on himself.
Answer; No. We limited our investigation to him, his wife, relatives and associates.
Besides, the witness admitted that no where in their findings did they discovered that Emefiele was a director or shareholder or an account signatory in either April1616 limited or Architekon Nigeria limited.
He also admitted that there was no evidence of any payment made to Emefiele by these companies in the course of performing his duties at the CBN.
Also when asked if in the course of their investigation they interviewed people in the CBN to determine whether the two firms executed the jobs they were contracted to do, the witness said “yes”.
However, when asked if the team in their final report stated this fact, the witness said he could not recall if they did.
Agboro had earlier admitted that his team did a report on their investigation which was forwarded to the DG, DSS, adding that he did not come to the court with it.
When asked if he was conversant with the procedure of award of contracts in the CBN, the witness who replied in affirmation, however, told the court that “I cannot remember” whether the defendant was part of the procurement and tender committees that vetted, reviewed and recommended April 1616 and Architekon for the various projects they handled.
Question: Are you aware that all the contracts that formed the basis of this charge passed through the vetting committee ?
Answer: I don’t know.
“In the course of your investigation did you see any document which showed that the defendant either by phone call, email or official communication of CBN made representation that April 1616 and Architekon should be awarded these contracts?
Answer: No.
Question: So as it relates to the award of contract to these two companies, you did not know if all these processes laid down by the CBN were followed?
Answer: You are correct.
Meanwhile, the witness admitted that April 1616 went through a bidding process with other companies and won the various contracts awarded to it.
Mr Agboro, further confirmed that he did not visit the contract sites to verify if the jobs awarded to the firms were done.
Question: Since you did not visit, you will not know if the contract was carried out or not?
Answer: Yes.
When asked if he thought it was wrong for payments to be made to the contractors after jobs had been completed, Mr Agboro confirmed that it was not inappropriate to make such payments.
Upon further cross examination regarding the number of people that treats a document for a final award of contracts, the witness confirmed that there are up to 10 persons that minutes on a contract document; whereas only the defendant, out of 10 that is standing trial.
Question: You will agree that of the 10 persons, it is only the defendant that is standing trial?
Answer: Yes.
On the issue of Emefiele’s wife being a Director of Architekon, the witness who claimed that besides documents obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Emefiele himself during an interview confirmed that Margaret Omoyile is his wife, however said he could not recall if Emefiele told him during the same interview that his wife was not a Director of Architekon.
