A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, in Maitama, Abuja has been informed by a witness that the suspended Accountant-General of the Federation, Ahmed Idris, voluntarily returned about $900,000 in cash.
According to the witness, the returned cash was part of the public funds allegedly diverted by the embattled Idris.
Recall that the former Accountant-General is standing trial for alleged missing N109 billion public funds under his watch.
The court also heard how N84.7 billion was taken from the $2.2 billion due to the nine oil-producing States, and shared by some senior government officials. An official of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Hayatudeen Ahmed, made the disclosure while testifying at the trial of Idris and three others.
The suspended Accountant-General, his former Technical Assistant, Godfrey Olusegun Akindele; a Director in the Office of the AG-F, Mohammed Kudu Usman, and a firm linked with Idris – Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited – are being tried on a 14-count charge of stealing and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N109 billion.
Ahmed, who testified as the first prosecution witness, was led in evidence by Rotimi Jacobs, (SAN).
He gave details of how his team investigated a petition in which Idris was accused of abuse of his office and compromised government’s platforms, such as the Treasury Single Account (TSA), the Government’s Integrated Financial Management Information System, among others.
The witness said when Idris was confronted with facts, “he (Idris) returned $900,000, less $100 ($899,900) voluntarily, which has now formed part of the exhibit in the case. He said out of the N84.7 billion that was shared among some government officials, N32 billion has been recovered so far.
Although lawyers to the defendants – Chris Uche, Joe Abraham, Mohammed Ndayako and Gordy Uche (all SANs) objected, Justice Halilu Yusuf admitted in evidence the petition written against Idris and Akindele’s firm’s account statements. They, however, objected to the admission of the defendants’ statements, which they claimed were obtained under inducement and duress.
Upon defence lawyers’ request, Justice Yusuf agreed to conduct trial within trial to ascertain the voluntariness or otherwise of the statements.
He adjourned till January 30 for the commencement of the trial within trial.
