How Nigerian Senator obtained N5 billion facilities with forged document
NEWS DIGEST – The trial of a former Gombe State governor, Danjuma Goje, continued on Thursday, 31st May, 2018 before Justice B Quadri at the Federal High Court Jos.
Mr Goje is facing trial alongside Aliyu El-Nafaty, S.M. Dokoro and Sabo Muhammad Tumu on conspiracy, embezzlement of funds belonging to Gombe State Government as well as taking loan facilities without following due process.
At the last adjourned date on February 7, the case was adjourned to today for continuation of hearing where the PW24 Chris Owbu an EFCC Operatives was scheduled to be cross examined by the defence counsel Prince Uche on his examination in chief earlier given to the court.
Mr Owbu stated that the EFCC wrote a letter of investigation activities to Access Bank where the facilities in question were collected requesting the statement of account, mandate card and all the account opening documents of the Gombe State Government account.
He further stated that when Access Bank responded to EFCC request, a copy of Gombe State House of Assembly resolution signed by one Shehu Muhammed Atiku, the clark Gombe State House of Assembly authorised the first defendant to obtain the said facilities was attached and sent to EFCC.
In order to prove the authenticity, genuineness or otherwise of the said resolution, a letter of investigation activities was sent to the Clark and was invited to EFCC for statement.
In his statement, the clerk of the Gombe State House of Assembly stated to the EFCC that the purported resolution sent to Access Bank upon which the N5billion loan facilities was granted to Gombe State Government did not emanate from the House and his signature was forged.
In re-examination led by the prosecution counsel Wahab Shittu, the PW24 was asked if the amount in question was mentioned in Gombe State Appropriation Act or in supplementary as domestic loan within the period under review which was answered in negative.
Prosecution counsel, informed the court of his intention to close his case, a development which necessitated the defence to open their defence.
Thereafter, the defence informed the court that he wants to enter a no -case -submission.
While adjourning the case to October 3, to address the court on the no-case submission, Justice Quadri gave the defence and the prosecution four weeks each to address the court and respond respectively.