Court knocks EFCC over ‘sloppy prosecution’ of Abba Moro

A federal high court in Abuja, on Wednesday, chided the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over its “sloppy prosecution” of Abba Moro, former minister of interior.

The EFCC is prosecuting Moro, Anastasia Daniel-Nwobia, a former permanent secretary in the ministry, and F O Alayebami, a deputy director in the ministry, over alleged N676 million recruitment fraud.

The agency is also prosecuting Drexel Tech Nigeria Limited, the firm that handled the Nigeria Immigration Service, (NIS) recruitment exercise of 2014 in which some job seekers were killed during a stampede.

When the trial resumed on Wednesday, Nnamdi Dimgba, the judge, criticised the anti-graft agency for its failure to produce the fourth prosecution witness for the continuation of case.

“This is your case and you have to arrange it in such a way as to avoid such occurrences. Your reasons sound a little sloppy with due respect,” he said.

“If I strike out this case for want of diligent prosecution, a lot of noise would be made by people who were not in court.

“We have to stop this nonsense and let it not repeat itself, you have to be ready for trial at the next adjourned date or else I will take the necessary action.”

Elizabeth Alabi, the prosecution counsel, who held brief for Aliu Yusuf, had told the court that the witness, a bank official based in Lagos, could not be reached during the Sallah break.

Alabi said the witness could not be prepared to give his testimony because he was unreachable.

The counsel said the witness was on subpoena, and she prayed the court for an adjournment.

“My lord, the fourth prosecution witness is not in court. He is a subpoenaed witness and we were unable to hold a pre-trial session due to the two days public holiday, we were unable to communicate with him,” she said.

“The witness is a banker and resides in Lagos. In the circumstances, we shall be asking for an adjournment to enable us bring our witness to court.”

Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), Moro’s lawyer expressed dissatisfaction at the failure of the prosecution to bring the witness to court.

Kehinde opposed the application for adjournment and urged the court to compel the prosecution to sign an undertaking to have its witness in court on the next adjourned date.

After listening to the counsel, the judge adjourned the matter until October 4.