The Counsel to the Federal Government in the ongoing trial of Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT Rotimi Jacobs has showed repeated efforts to shield the prosecution’s lead witness, Official of the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Micheal Wetkas from revealing more discrepancies found in his testimony.
While undergoing cross-examination from Paul Usoro, the counsel to Saraki on Tuesday, the witness showed further signs of inconsistencies and an inability to justify several of his key testimonies against Saraki.
Jacobs, who has also been a counsel to the EFCC for many years, further proved these contradictions by interrupting the cross-examination process on several occasions – to either defend Wetkas, or give him an opportunity to come up with appropriate answers.
When asked to clarify his declaration that a particular house on Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, that he claimed belonged to the Senate President was not declared with descriptions, Wetkas was stumped.
Sensing the EFCC official’s inability to address the question, Jacobs objected strongly and drew the attention of the court to the last cross examination stating that clarifications on the aforementioned page had been addressed.
“If there is any discrepancy that was made by the defendant himself, my Lord let’s look at Exhibit 1 and 2, there is no issue here but I will bring someone to give authoritative evidence,” Jacobs said.
“My Lord we are talking about different properties, how do we get justice if your Lordship doesn’t get these nuances? There are four different properties in question here,” Usoro, Saraki’s counsel countered.
Usoro went on to challenge Wetkas’s testimony urging both Jacobs and and the tribunal to allow the witness to answer directly.
The CCT Chairman, and presiding judge, Danladi Umar, in supporting statements said that it was necessary for Wetkas to address the inconsistencies, as he urged Saraki’s counsel to continue on with the cross-examination.
Wetkas, since the commencement of his cross-examination, has found it difficult to defend many of the assertions that he made when he was providing evidence to support the Federal Government’s case.