There was mild drama at the Kwara State High Court on Thursday during the continuation of the hearing in the N5.78bn case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against former governor Abdulfatah Ahmed and his erstwhile Commissioner for Finance, Alhaji Demola Banu.

Though both Ahmed and Banu were physically present in court, the matter was stalled midway through hearing following disagreement between the defence counsels and the EFCC team over the documents tendered before the court as exhibits.

For several minutes, counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), and lead counsel to the defendants, Kamaldeen Ajibade (SAN), argued about the improper arrangement of documents served on the latter and the same documents tendered before the court.

Jacobs had tendered the documents to be admitted as exhibits before the court, but counsel to the defendants insisted that the “bundle of documents” was different from what was served on them and was also not properly arranged or numbered to guide the court in the proceedings.

Jacobs, on the other hand, argued that the documents served on the defence counsels and which were also available before the court were the same as the ones in his possession.

He argued that it was not the duty of his team to number the documents as tendered for the defence counsels.

After listening to both parties and carefully going through the said documents, the presiding judge, Justice Mahmud Gafar, agreed with the submission of the defence counsel that the documents needed to be properly arranged.

He then adjourned the case till February 16 for continuation of the hearing to allow the EFCC legal team time to properly arrange the documents.

Fielding questions from journalists after the adjournment, Ajibade said the request for the documents to be arranged properly was in order because it has to do with “proof of evidence”.

“Criminal matter was not supposed to be ambushed. What he has served on us was not properly highlighted,” he said.

Also speaking, Jacobs, who insisted that it was not the duty of his team to arrange the documents, however, said they conceded to the party’s request in the spirit of fairness.

“They said the documents were not paginated and not arranged in chronological order in which we tendered them. It is not our duty to number the documents for them, but in the spirit of fairness to the party, we conceded to them,” he said. (SUN)