Attempts by counsel to a former House of Representative member from Eti Osa Local Govwrnment area of Lagos State, Mr Anthony Akala and three others over their trial on alleged N240 million fraud, before a Federal High Court, was today frustrated, as the court ruled that in a criminal matter, it is not for the defense to determine who represent the Attorney General of the Federation or the inspector General of police.
The court presided over by Justice Hadiza Rabiu-Shagari, consequently ordered the defendants to commence the cross examination of the first prosecution witness since a member of the prosecution team was in court to continue with the trial.
The four accused persons are: Honourable Anthony Alaka, a.k.a General, a former member of the House of Representatives, representing Eti-Osa Federal Constituency, Saidi Oke, Bashir Mohammed: and Alhaji Umar Ali.
The court had on the last trial date renewed its earlier bench warrant issued against Dr. Chukwuemeka Cyraicus Anyanwu, 50: Agboola Rasheed Gbade, 67: Nkechi Nwafor, 43: and Larry Balogun Otunba, 51, who were also mentioned in the charge.
While under Cross examination from counsel to the first to third defendants, the witness, Austin Ugochukwu, who is the victim of the alleged fraud, told the court that he is a financial consultant and a broker of about two years experience.
On how Austin get to know that the first defendant (Akala) owns the Ford truck and G-Wagon said to have been used in collecting the dollars from the Bureau De Change, the witness said that was the confession of Aliyu Ayuba to the police.
The four accused persons are: Honourable Anthony Alaka, (a.k.a General, a former member of the House of Representatives, representing Eti-Osa Federal Constituency, Saidi Oke, Bashir Mohammed: and Alhaji Umar Ali, are being arraigned before the court by the Federal Criminal Intelligence and Investigation Department (FCIID), Alagbon, Lagos.
The police also alleged that the four after fraudulently received the money from the victim, converted same to their personal use.
The offences according to the prosecution, are contrary to sections 8(b) and 1(3) and punishable under sections 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.
All the accused however pleaded not guilty to the charge.