By Chisaa Okoye (Business reporter)
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, presented its third prosecution witness, (PW3) in the trial of one Babatunde Keshinro, a former Head, Commercial Banking with Polaris Bank in Nigeria, for an alleged N10million theft before Justice I.O.Ijelu of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja.
The EFCC is prosecuting Keshinro on a nine-count charge bordering on forgery and stealing to the tune of N10million.
He was initially standing trial before Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos before whom he pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.
However, the trial could not be concluded before the retirement of the trial judge.
The former judge, Justice Taiwo had in a ruling in 2020, rejected a no -case application by Keshinro and declared that evidence by prosecution linked him to the charges and there were facts that required explanation from him.
The judge then ordered the defendant to open his defence on Sept. 29, 2020.
But following Justice Taiwo’s retirement, the case was transferred to Justice Ijelu.
The defendant, again, pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the witness, Bamaiyi Mairiga, a forensic expert in the Forensic Department of the EFCC Headquarters, Abuja, narrated the role the Forensic Department played in the investigation of the alleged offence.
Led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, H.U. Kofarnaisa, Mairiga noted that he didn’t know the defendant and only used international standard techniques to forensically analyse the documents forwarded to the Department from the Lagos Zonal Command of the EFCC.
“As a trained Forensic Document Examiner that has undergone foreign training, I am skilled in forensic analysis of travel documents, analysis of alterations and signatures, among others,” he said.
According to him, the Forensic Department got the request for the analysis of some signatures for further comparison.
“When the Department got the request, we carried out detailed forensic examinations in line with best international practices; and after the analysis, we made our report as a response to the request,” he said.
He further shed light on the various international techniques used in analysing the specimen signatures included in the forwarded documents as well as the disputed ones sent for comparison.
“Both disputed documents and specimens were analysed and further comparisons were carried out.
“The conclusion from the forensic analysis was that from pen movement and other techniques used, the author of the specimen signature did not sign the disputed documents,” he said.
He, thereafter, identified Exhibit P9, being the request sent to the Forensic Department and which was already before the court.
He further identified the report of the forensic analysis carried out, and which was sent in response to the request.
When the prosecution sought to tender the said report, there was no objection raised by the defence counsel, V. Amusan-Giwa.
The document was, thereafter, admitted in evidence as Exhibit P10.
Under cross-examination, the witness noted that there was no need to request further documents, adding that “the author of the specimen documents did not sign the disputed signatures and documents.”
Justice Ijelu adjourned the matter till December 5, 2024 “for continuation of trial and conclusion of the case of the prosecution.”