details of his company (the 5th Defendant) to enable her conclude
a transaction. The 4th Defendant obliged her and the total sum of
N20,000,000.00 was credited into that account. He testified that
upon the instruction of the 1st Defendant, he made payment
during that period totaling N21,000,000.00. He said the bank
charges and other transactional charges on the said amount were
not included and he bore those costs. He was however invited in
2013 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to
explain the transaction surrounding that money. He made his
statement to the EFCC and was told to leave but was however
arraigned in 2014 before this Court on an amended charge. It
was during the course of the EFCC investigation that he got to
know more facts about the transaction involving the money paid
into the 5th Defendant’s account. He testified that the 1st
Defendant was his wife and he had no reason to doubt the
transparency of the transaction she was involved in when she
requested for the 5th Defendant’s bank details. He said there have
been precedents and Mr. Victor who made the payment was at
that time the 4th Defendant’s employer. He was therefore fairly
certain that the source of funds and the intended purpose had
integrity. The 4th Defendant testified that of the sums disbursed,
the sum of N9,000,000.00 cheque was issued to the 3rd
Defendant. He said the sums of N6,500,000.00, N2,000,000.00
and N200,000.00 were issued to the 1st Defendant. He said
N3,500,000.00 was issued to himself out of which N1,100,000.00
was his own money and the balance of N2,400,000.00 was given
to the 1st Defendant. He said although the 1st Defendant is his
wife, he only met the 2nd and 3rd Defendants before the trial
commenced. He has never had any meeting with the other
Defendants as regards the present transaction and was not privy
to the transaction until Mr. Victor asked him to visit the site of the
2nd Defendant’s plot. The 2nd Defendant testified that he did not
benefit from the transaction.
Under cross- examination, the 2nd Defendant repeated that he
was not privy to the details of engagement of the 1st Defendant
by Mr. Victor. When he asked the 1st Defendant what the money
was meant for, she told him that Mr. Victor asked her to act as
agent in a property transaction. The 4th Defendant stated that Mr.
25