Adenle Ahmed Abiola

The trial of four bloggers: Precious Eze, Olawale Rotimi, Rowland Olonishuwa, and Seun Odunlami, charged with allegedly blackmailing Guaranty Trust Holding Company and its Group Chief Executive Officer, Segun Agbaje, was on Thursday adjourned to January 13 and 14, 2025.

They were dragged before Justice Ayokunle Faji of the Federal High Court, Lagos by the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigeria Police Force.

They are facing a 10 count amended charge for allegedly publishing false information about GTCO and Agbaje through various social media platforms.

They had pleaded not guilty to the charges and were denied bail because Eze was accused of being a serial offender.

However, Justice Faji ordered an accelerated trial of the four bloggers.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on November 13 and 14, 2024, Justice Faji dismissed their bail applications, citing the serious nature of the alleged offences, which included charges that could lead to up to 14 years in prison.

The judge also held that Eze has shown the tendencies of committing the offence again if let out as he is currently charged with a similar offence in another court and was only out on bail when he went ahead to commit the alleged offence for which he is now standing trial.

He also highlighted the potential destabilising impact such actions could have on the banking sector, particularly since some of the charges involved cross-border activities on the internet.

He also noted that the defendants’ actions challenged the authority of regulatory bodies, including the Central Bank of Nigeria, which had approved GTCO’s audited statements.

At the resumption of trial on Thursday, the defence counsel, O. A Afolabi, called Eze, the 1st defendant, to the witness box to give his testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the recording of his statement at the police custody after his arrest.

The witness said: “I was arrested on September 21, 2024 at Gbagada and was taken to the SFU office in Ikoyi.

“When we got there, I was taken to the office on the first floor by the right, where we met someone called Abu, who later called Mr. Yakubu to conduct my interrogation.

“He then took me to another office where there were many files.

“He then asked me if I knew why I was arrested and I answered that I had no idea.

“A file was then shown to me and I didn’t know how the file applied to me.

“Yakubu then replied that it was a petition written against me and a few others from GTB.

“We sat down and discussed.

“He told me my name was mentioned that I wrote a story against the bank and he said if I should cooperate with him, the issue will be settled seamlessly.

“He said if I give the full details of the issues, I’d be free to go.

“He said I should write my statement and I asked that my lawyer has to be here before I write and he replied that it doesn’t matter since all that he asked was for me to write what happened.

“I was insistent on having my lawyer around and he got offended.

“He said I should write my statement If I want to leave the station that same day.

“I agreed eventually and he brought a sheet of paper for me to write.”

On whether the interrogation room captured in the video played for the court was the same room he was taken to immediately he got to the SFU office, the witness replied that he had seen the video and the room was different from the initial one he was taken.

Afolabi further asked the circumstances surrounding the writing of the two statements shown in court.

Eze replied: “The statement I wrote in the first office I was taken to was the same one I was given to rewrite the same thing in another form.”

Objecting, the prosecution counsel, Chief Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), urged the court to play the video recording of the statement to ascertain the authenticity of the witness’s claims that he copied his first statement in his second.

Chief Aribisala informed the court that the two statements, in contrast to what the witness said, were two different statements without same narration and meaning.

In continuation of his cross-examination, the prosecuting counsel urged the court to allow the witness to read out a few lines from the two statements to determine if it was copied or rewritten.

The defence counsel raised an objection to the suggestion of reading out the content of the statements to the court by the prosecuting counsel.

Aribisala insisted that the statement is yet to be admitted before the court and as such cannot be read out.

After few deliberations, the trial judge admitted the statement as evidence to be used in the trial within trial.

The prosecuting counsel, after the careful comparing and contrasting of the two statements, asked the witness the similarities between the two statements to ascertain it as being copied or rewritten.

The witness replied: “I’m not a child and I’m learned to know that I’m not expected to write the statement verbatim.

“And as a writer, I can write on the same subject matter or topic with different approaches or words.”

Eze added that the initial part of the second statement he was seen writing in the video played in the court was dictated to him by Investigating Police Officer Yakubu, who later gave him the first statement to copy into the second one he wrote.

Opposing, Chief Aribisala told the court that the two statements are the original thoughts of the witness and not dictated as the witness had alleged in his testimony.

Justice Faji thereafter adjourned the case until January 13 and 14, 2025 for further cross-examination of witnesses.

The Eagle Online recalls that at the resumption of trial on Tuesday, a police witness, M. Yakubu, who was still under oath, was cross-examined by the defence counsel.

Adeniyi had asked him: “Are you familiar with international laws and practices that guide investigators and the implications of not adhering to such laws and practices?”

The witness replied: “I am aware,” adding that he had been an investigator since 2001.

On whether he knew that each column in a statement form has its importance to the investigator and the suspects and as well familiar with his right to guide and not induce or promise the suspect through the process, the witness replied that he was certainly aware.

Adeniyi further asked for the starting and ending time of each statement recording of the defendants from the 1st to the 4th and the reason for the process without the presence of their lawyers

The witness replied that the maximum time spent in recording the statement of each defendant was an hour and it was done in the absence of their legal representatives, which he said was as the defendants agreed to do.

He further probed: “How many interrogation rooms do you have at your station?”

Witness replied: “We have only one.”

Defence counsel: “How did you record the statement of the four defendants?”

Witness: “It was done one after the other and I was the one who conducted it.”

Defence counsel: “Do you have an observation room at your station? How many?”

Witness: “We only have CCTV footage of the interrogation room, which can only be viewed from the office of the CP, DSP and ACP.”

The defence counsel then prayed the court to give room for more witnesses for cross examination.

Opposing the application, Chief Aribisala urged the court to reject the request or mandate the defence counsel to make available the list of witnesses before they appear in court.

In delivering his ruling, Justice Faji ordered the defence counsel to update the prosecuting counsel on the list of the witnesses that will be summoned at the next hearing slated for Thursday, December 12, 2024.