Court to rule April 14 on document in $35m NCDMB case

Nkereuwem Effiong

The trial of Akindele Akintoye, Platforms Capital Investment Partners Limited and Duport Midstream Company Limited continued on Tuesday before Justice Ekerete Akpan of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with the court fixing April 14, 2026, to rule on the admissibility of a document presented by the defence.

The defendants are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on an amended six-count charge bordering on dishonesty and the alleged conversion of $35 million belonging to the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board.

During the cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness, Isaac Yalah, counsel for the first and second defendants, E.O. Adekwu, SAN, showed the witness a letter said to have been written by the first defendant to the board seeking to acquire NCDMB.

Yalah confirmed the document before the court.

“I confirm the letter now shown to me is a copy of that letter from the first defendant to buy off NCDMB entirely,” he said.

However, when the defence sought to tender the document in evidence, the prosecution counsel, E.E. Iheanacho, SAN, objected, arguing that the document was inadmissible because it was a photocopy of a public document that had not been certified.

“I have an objection to the admissibility of this document. The ground is that this document is a photocopy of an original, and it is addressed to NCDMB, which is a public institution. Such a document ought to have been certified,” Iheanacho said.

He argued that under Sections 89 and 102 of the Evidence Act, only a certified true copy of a public document is admissible in court. He also cited the cases of Adeyefa v. Bamgboye (2013) and Onwuzuruike v. Edoziem (2016) in support of his objection.

In response, defence counsel urged the court to admit the document, arguing that it should no longer be treated as a public document but a private one. He also stated that the court had earlier issued a subpoena to the NCDMB to produce the document.

“In addition, this court issued a subpoena dated November 19, 2025, directing NCDMB to produce this document. On that basis, we submit that the document is admissible and urge the court to admit it,” he said.

But the prosecution insisted that the subpoena only compelled the production of the document and did not automatically make it admissible in evidence.

“The subpoena issued was only to produce the document and not to tender it in evidence. Even if served on NCDMB, the officer of that institution can only produce the document before the court. It does not cure any defect in its admissibility under the Evidence Act,” Iheanacho argued.

He further noted that the witness was no longer a staff member of NCDMB, having retired from the board, and that there was no evidence that the subpoena had been served on him. Justice Akpan subsequently adjourned the matter to April 14, 2026, for a ruling on the admissibility of the document, while May 18 and 19, 2026, were fixed for the continuation of cross-examination.