BREAKING: Atalanta dump Dortmund, storm into Champions League last 16

Follow Us: Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube
LATEST SCORES:
Loading live scores...
News

₦33.8bn Fraud: Court blocks Mamman’s counsel from using unauthorized witness

Ex-minister Mamman admitted to ₦33.8bn fraud voluntarily before lawyers - Witness
E-minister of power Saleh Mamman.

Quick Read

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, February 26, 2026, stopped the defence of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, from calling an unauthorized witness, escalating the courtroom tension in the alleged ₦33.8 billion fraud trial.

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, February 26, 2026, stopped the defence of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, from calling an unauthorized witness, escalating the courtroom tension in the alleged ₦33.8 billion fraud trial.

The judge ruled that Abdulkareem Ibrahim Ozi, who had already testified for the prosecution as Pw2, cannot be summoned by the defence without proper judicial procedure.

“What I know is that a witness, having testified in court—even if a witness of the court—cannot be recalled to give evidence without reason. This procedure is strange and unknown in our jurisprudence. The defence may, however, cross-examine him,” Justice Omotosho said.

Earlier, defence counsel Femi Atteh, SAN, had sought to have Ozi testify for the defence, arguing that certain documents he authored (PwB1,2,3) needed clarification. Atteh insisted the witness could shed light on critical exhibits to support Mamman’s case.

But prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, objected fiercely, calling the move “an abuse of court process.”
“My lord, this process is strange and irregular. The defence has not identified which documents they intend to cross-examine. We provided all exhibits during our case, so it is unclear why this witness should be recalled,” Oyedepo argued.

Justice Omotosho then discharged the witness from the stand, instructing that any request to call him in future must be properly filed in writing, not via a subpoena at the court’s instance.

Following the ruling, defence counsel confirmed that their case had been formally closed. The matter was adjourned to April 13, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.

Comments

×