EFCC counters Maina’s witness, says allegations against Magu can’t be proved

Mohammed Abubakar, counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the trial of Abdulrasheed Maina, former chairman of the Pension Reformed Task Team (PRTT), says the allegations of fraud against Ibrahim Magu cannot be proved.

The first defence witness in the case, Ngozika Ihuoma, had alleged that Magu, former EFCC acting chairman, misappropriated 222 properties worth N1.63 trillion recovered by the Maina-led PRTT.

Ihuoma had told the court on Thursday that the properties were handed over to the EFCC.

He alleged that Magu had sold most of the properties to his friends and associates.

The witness said a petition written to the attorney-general of the federation (AGF) led to the setting up of the Ayo Salami-led judicial commission of inquiry to probe Magu’s activities.

Ihuoma had said: “Magu admitted before Salami that he shared and allocated most of these properties to most of his friends, associates, colleagues under some presidential directives but failed to make available to the commission the evidence of that presidential directives.”

However, during cross-examination by the EFCC counsel on Friday, the witness admitted that no document to prove the allegation against Magu was brought before the court.

“Did you tender in court, the purported petition to the AGF against Magu and the EFCC that led to the setting up of the Ayo-Salami panel?” Abubakar asked.

“You did not tender proof that Magu confessed to the allegations.

“You said that the report of the Ayo-Salami panel indicted Magu but did not tender the said report submitted to President Muhammadu Buhari about the activities of the panel.”

Ihuoma answered all the questions asked in the negative.

The witness however insisted that he had documentary evidence wherein the 222 choice properties recovered by Maina are listed.

He also stated that there are documents showing that the PRTT recovered N181 billion within the first 11 months of its establishment.

Nevertheless, those documents were not tendered as evidence before the court.