N109.5bn Fraud: Court fixes October 13 for final arguments in former AGF trial

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Wednesday adjourned proceedings in the alleged N109.5 billion fraud case involving Ahmed Idris, former Accountant-General of the Federation, until October 13, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses in the ongoing trial-within-trial.

Yusuf Halilu (Justice) fixed the date after the defence closed its case following the testimony of its final witness, Hajiya Safiya Idris.

Idris is standing trial before the court alongside Geoffrey Olusegun Akindele, Mohammed Kudu Usman and Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited.

The defendants are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 14-count charge bordering on the alleged stealing and fraudulent diversion of public funds amounting to N109.5 billion.

The trial-within-trial was ordered by the court on November 22, 2022, following an application by Chris Uche, lead defence counsel, who challenged the admissibility of statements made by the former Accountant-General to the EFCC.

The defence had alleged that the statements were obtained through deception and inducement.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, Uche informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the continuation of the trial-within-trial and that the defence intended to call a witness.

The defence subsequently presented Hajiya Safiya Idris, who described herself as a resident of Efab Estate, Guzape, Abuja, and told the court that she had maintained a long-standing family relationship with Ahmed Idris, whom she regarded “like a father.”

While giving evidence, Safiya recounted events surrounding June 6, 2022, when she visited the EFCC headquarters in Abuja in an attempt to see the former Accountant-General, who was then in the custody of the anti-graft agency.

According to her, she was initially informed that Idris was not in the detention facility but was instead in one of the offices within the main building.

“I was told he wasn’t in the cell but in the main building. I went there to see if I would be able to see him but I wasn’t allowed. We waited for a long time before I was eventually allowed to enter the office that he was in,” she told the court.

Safiya further testified that upon entering the office, two EFCC officials identified as Hayatu and Mahmud requested that she sign as a witness to a statement being written by the first defendant.

When shown the statement in question, she acknowledged that both the signature and handwriting appearing on the document belonged to her.

She told the court that she wrote on the document that the statement was taken in her presence because she had been assured that Idris would be released.

Under cross-examination by prosecuting counsel, A.O. Atolagbe, however, the witness admitted that she was neither invited by nor under investigation by the EFCC and had visited the commission voluntarily.

She also claimed that the statement had already been written before she was allowed into the office and that her role was limited to signing after the statement had been completed.

Responding to questions from the prosecution, Safiya stated that Idris was unaware of her presence at the EFCC until she was called into the office to sign the document.

The prosecution further drew her attention to a portion of the June 6, 2022 statement which read: “In addition to my last statement, I wish to state that I am writing this statement in the presence of Hajiya Idris Safiya.”

Asked whether that portion had been written before she entered the room, the witness said she could not determine when it was inserted into the statement.

She also confirmed that her name did not appear in any of the other statements made by Idris because she was not present when those statements were taken.

When questioned on why she failed to lodge a complaint if she believed she had been pressured into signing the document, Safiya acknowledged that she never reported the matter and agreed that she was under no obligation to write anything for the EFCC, having not been under investigation.

Despite the line of questioning, she maintained that she was truthful when she stated that the statement was taken in her presence.

Following the conclusion of her testimony and with no further questions from the prosecution, the witness was discharged.

Uche subsequently informed the court that the defence had closed its case in the trial-within-trial proceedings.

Halilu thereafter adjourned the matter until October 13, 2026, when parties are expected to adopt their final written addresses.