Prosecution fails in diplomatic passport case

Having gone through the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, and having cited some authorities to support her judgement, the presiding judge told the court that the prosecution had failed to adduce any credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence charged. According to her, while certain witnesses alleged that they paid monies to named individuals for the processing of passports or travel arrangements, those individuals were neither called as witnesses nor presented before the court to establish any connection between their alleged actions and the accused.

“In the absence of such material witnesses, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any fraudulent activity or deceit involving the accused. The prosecution’s submission that it called several witnesses to testify as to how the accused allegedly facilitated or enabled certain individuals to obtain diplomatic passports to which they were not entitled was not supported by cogent evidence,” she asserted.

Mere association or facilitation of access, she stated, does not prove fraudulent intent, unlawful authority or active participation in the alleged wrongdoing.  She further posited that the evidence before the court did not satisfy the legal threshold required to sustain the charges before the court.

“The prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused person contrary to Section 332 of the Criminal Code. Count three was withdrawn by the prosecution. The accused person was wrongly charged on counts 4 and 5. He was charged under the wrong section, 228 of the Criminal Code. The evidence presented was speculative and insufficient to discharge the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the accused was not discredited during cross-examination. The prosecution has woefully fallen short of the fundamental principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt due to the reasons the court highlighted above,” she added.

On Count 4, the presiding judge said, there was no evidence before the court that the accused obtained the sum of D175,000 or any goods by false pretence. She further adduced that the diplomatic passports claimed to have been issued were never tendered in court. She went on to say that the prosecution had failed to prove counts 4 and 5 accordingly.

“From the totality of the evidence adduced, it shows that the conduct attributed to the accused would more appropriately sustain a charge of abuse of office rather than the offence brought before the court,” she declared.