The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for ruling on the admissibility of a judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in suit number FCT/HC/CV/2574/2023 between Mr Ali Bello and Incorporated Trustees of American International School.

The Defendant's Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, had, before proceeding on cross-examination of the EFCC's third witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, from AISA, sought to tender the document, which had decided on the issue of payment of fees or refund in the ongoing case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

GALAXY TV reports that the Defence Counsel had also sought to tender the receipts of the recertification of the said documents.

However, Pinherio, SAN, who had earlier examined the witness, objected, saying that the Prosecution had not yet closed its case.

He argued that the defendant could not tender documents at a time the prosecution was still proving its case, citing Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

Reacting, Daudu SAN said the admissibility of documents in criminal or civil cases is governed strictly and exclusively by the principles of relevance to the proceedings at hand.

He maintained that once it is adjudged, the document is relevant and becomes automatically admissible, in accordance with what is contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Pinherio, however, urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the Defence Counsel had not demonstrated that it comes within the ambit of Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

Justice Emeka Nwite, therefore, held that a date would be given for ruling on the admissibility of the FCT High Court judgment.

He adjourned the case to May 8 and 9, for ruling on the admissibility and for continuation of trial.

Earlier, when trial resumed on Friday, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, asked the Registrar to give the witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, Exhibits 13P1 to 13P10.

Meanwhile, the Defence Counsel could not proceed with his cross-examination because the Judge had to adjourn for ruling on the admissibility of an earlier judgment of the FCT High Court on the issue of payments of school fees.