Witness: No evidence to show Saraki bought undeclared property
Michael Wetkas, a detective of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Tuesday, admitted that there was no evidence to show that Senate President Bukola Saraki bought a piece of undeclared property.
The property in contention is the one at 15 McDonald street, Ikoyi, Lagos, which Saraki allegedly did not declare.
Wetkas, a witness of the prosecution, while being cross-examined by Paul Usoro (SAN), Saraki’s lawyer, also told the tribunal that he did not check if the records of the property were at the Lagos Land Registry.
Questioning the witness based on a joint inspection report of the EFCC and the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) of July 28, 2006 on the property, Usoro asked if the committee from which the defendant allegedly bought the property numbered the street.
Saraki’s lawyer: “The function of the implementation committee does not include numbering of streets. Does it?
Wetkas: “I don’t know that.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “You do know that the committee does not deal with private property?”
Wetkas: “Yes. It only deals with government property.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Why did you go to the Lagos Land Registry?”
Wetkas: “For verification of property at 15A and B McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Are you aware that Lagos state government does not keep title deeds of federal government property?”
Wetkas: “I don’t know.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Your inquiry to Lagos Land Registry how was it?
Wetkas: “It was in writing.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Was the property in the reply of the registry?”
Wetkas: “I can’t recall.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Did you check with them if they have a record of the property?”
Wetkas: “I didn’t check.”
Saraki’s lawyer: “Did you come across any document saying that the defendant bought personally the property in the course of your investigation?”
Wetkas: “There was none.”
However, the witness went on to explain that the property was paid for through the account of Carlye Properties and Investment Limited, one of Saraki’s companies.
He claimed that 75 percent of the money was generated through a loan signed by the wife of the defendant.
I think this defence lawyer only wanted to let his client know he is atleast saying something in the Court. Must someone purchase good personally before we know he is the owner or not. The witness said the property was purchase by one of Saraki company. What else do we need again.
You are a novice ! You don’t talk about what you don’t know. There is a clear distinction between a person and a company. A company may have up to 9 directors or shareholders. EFCC and CCB have lost this case based on their shoddy investigation and self contradictory evidence of the prosecution. Evidential proofs are different from sentiments and propaganda.
Saraki has no case to answer of course. Mind you justice can not see and therefore will not see, but can only hear and whatever you say are always put down in writing upon which judgement is based
Whiskeycally corrupt witness