Amadi’s Trial : Why We Didn’t Issue Query To Ex-employee For Indirect Payment—Witness

 

 

The Prosecution Witness and Managing Director of Eunisell Ltd, Mr Chika Ikenga today, Thursday told a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos that Eunisell Limited did not issue any query to its former employee, Mr Kenneth Amadi demanding his explanation on why payments were made indirectly to Eunisell account.

Mr Chika Ikenga made the statement while being cross examined by O.J. Adewale, defence counsel for Mr Kenneth Amadi
The office of the Attorney General of the federation has charged Amadi for alleged N2.9 billion fraud.

In continuation of Amadi’s trial on Thursday before Justice Lewis Ambrose Allagoa, Mrs Aderonke Imana announced appearance for prosecution while Mr O.J. Adewale who took over from Mr Emeka Etiaba (SAN) announced appearance for defence.

In continuation of the cross examination by defence counsel, the witness said that they received payments from AZ and Amasco, but the money came from first defendant’s company.

“We received some money from first defendant and he told us that they came from AZ and Amasco. As the CEO, we took his words for that.”

When asked if the money was returned since it didn’t come direct from AZ and Amasco, the witness said “No, we just complained to the police and EFCC”

When asked if his problem was that the money came to Eunisell account from the first and second defendant, Chika Ikenga said that the money was paid by second defendant to Eunisell.

When further asked if he tendered any document to court showing payment details, he said no but it was given to the police for their investigation.

The witness confirmed that there was no letter from either AZ or Amasco to Eunisell stating that first and second defendants are being fraudulent.

When further asked if he has seen the response of AZ to the police after his petition, the witness said “Yes. At this point, the letter from AZ to the police was shown to the witness which he confirmed.

In answer to another question, the witness who said that he is not a director in both AZ and Amasco, admitted that AZ paid some money the day first defendant resigned from Eunisell. He added that AZ was owing N103 million to Eunisell.

When asked how much was Amasco owing as at February, 2017, the witness said that he was not in a position to say that.

At this point, the defence counsel concluded his cross examination of the witness. The witness was then discharged.

The matter has been adjourned to December 10 for continuation of trial.

Meanwhile, Mr Emeka Etiaba (SAN) who was the lead defence counsel for the defendant, announced before the presiding judge that he was disengaging himself from continuing as counsel for the defendants.
He cited wrong media reports of the case as one of his reasons for withdrawing his services to the defendants.

When the judge asked first defendant if he needs adjournment in order to get another lawyer, Mr Amadi told the court that he wants the second defence counsel Mr O.J. Adewale to continue.

The judge then granted the prayers of Etiaba to disengage from the matter.

Be the first to comment on "Amadi’s Trial : Why We Didn’t Issue Query To Ex-employee For Indirect Payment—Witness"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*