Nigeria: Court Rejects Key Evidence in Dasuki's N33.2bn Trial

The rejected evidence consisted of seven extra-judicial statements attributed to Aminu Baba-Kusa, a co-defendant in the alleged N33.2 billion fraud case. The judge ruled that the statements failed to comply with Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. That made them inadmissible, meaning the prosecution cannot rely on them in the trial.

The dispute focused on how the statements were obtained in 2015. Baba-Kusa’s lawyer argued that he was held under pressure, including in an alleged underground EFCC cell. EFCC investigators said he wrote the statements voluntarily and was treated well. Baba-Kusa confirmed writing them and receiving cautionary words, but the court found the required safeguards were not credibly established.

The judge said no audio-visual recording showed the circumstances in which the statements were taken. The EFCC requested the ruling to consider its next steps, including a possible appeal. The article does not establish how central the statements were to the remaining prosecution case.

A trial-within-trial is a focused hearing inside a criminal case. It examines whether a disputed statement was made freely and whether investigators followed the law. The judge decides admissibility before the statement can be considered in the main trial. This protects the fairness and reliability of the evidence.

Here, Baba-Kusa’s lawyer objected when the EFCC tried to tender seven statements from 2015. The defence said the statements were obtained under duress and argued that detention in an underground EFCC cell meant they were not freely made. The judge therefore ordered a separate inquiry into their voluntariness.

The EFCC called three investigators. They said Baba-Kusa wrote the statements voluntarily, was treated well, and was not held in an underground cell. Baba-Kusa confirmed writing them and receiving cautionary words. After nearly eight months, the judge excluded the statements because compliance with the ACJA was not credibly proved.

The case concerns an alleged diversion of N33.2 billion in arms and security funds entrusted to the Office of the National Security Adviser. Former NSA Sambo Dasuki and businessman Aminu Baba-Kusa face the joint trial. Baba-Kusa’s companies, Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited, are also defendants because they allegedly received part of the funds.

The prosecution says money moved from the NSA office under Dasuki’s supervision. Its first witness described an alleged N2.2 billion diversion intended for election security. The witness also testified about transfers approved by Dasuki to Baba-Kusa, who allegedly used the proceeds to buy properties and foreign currencies in euros and dollars.

The trial has lasted over a decade. It suffered setbacks and adjournments, then restarted after the case was reassigned. The defendants were re-arraigned in March last year and denied the charges again. The main trial has now paused until 13 November after the evidence dispute.

Excluding the statements removes one group of prosecution exhibits from the trial record. The EFCC can no longer rely on them as admitted evidence under the judge’s ruling. That matters because the statements may have supported the prosecution’s account of how money moved and what Baba-Kusa knew, although the article says their importance is still unclear.

The exclusion does not automatically end the fraud case. The EFCC has already called one prosecution witness in the substantive trial. That witness described an alleged N2.2 billion diversion from the NSA office and transfers approved by Dasuki to Baba-Kusa. Those other allegations and testimony remain part of the proceedings, subject to the court’s assessment.

EFCC lawyer Oluwaleke Atolagbe requested a copy of the ruling to decide the next step. The article identifies a possible appeal or restarting the evidence process. The case was adjourned until 13 November, so the prosecution’s response and the ruling’s practical effect remain pending.

The article links Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act to safeguards for obtaining suspect statements. In practical terms, Section 15(4) requires a suspect’s statement to be taken with a legal practitioner or another chosen person present, subject to the law’s conditions. Section 17(2) requires an audio-visual recording of the statement-taking process. These provisions help show that a statement was freely made.

The case turned on whether those safeguards were followed in 2015. Baba-Kusa’s defence said he was pressured in EFCC custody. Investigators said he wrote voluntarily, received cautionary words, and was treated well. Yet the EFCC did not produce credible proof satisfying the judge that the statutory requirements had been met.

The article specifically highlights the missing audio-visual recording. The judge said recording would allow the court to see the circumstances surrounding the statements. Because compliance was not established, all seven statements were rejected. This explanation uses the Act’s requirements alongside the article’s account of the ruling.

Audio-visual recordings matter because voluntariness depends on circumstances, not only on the words written in a statement. Footage can show the suspect, investigators, and the setting while questioning occurred. It may reveal pressure, threats, mistreatment, or a calm process. That gives the court direct material for deciding whether the evidence was freely produced.

In Baba-Kusa’s case, the EFCC investigators said he voluntarily wrote his statements and was treated well. The defence argued that he had been held under pressure, including in an underground cell. One investigator said a CCTV recording existed, but suggested it was made about 10 years ago and was not mandatory. The court took a different view of the missing recording’s importance.

The judge said the aim of audio-visual recording is for the court to see the circumstances when statements were taken. Because the EFCC did not provide credible proof that the required safeguards were met, the seven statements were excluded. The ruling shows why process evidence can determine admissibility.

An allegation is a claim that someone committed wrongdoing; it is not yet proof. An investigation is the process of gathering information, questioning people, and examining records to test that claim. Admissible evidence is information the court allows into the trial because it meets legal requirements. A judge may exclude evidence even when investigators obtained it during a genuine investigation.

The article describes allegations that Dasuki and Baba-Kusa diverted N33.2 billion in arms and security funds. The EFCC investigated and prosecuted the case, presenting investigators and statements. Its first prosecution witness also testified about an alleged N2.2 billion diversion and transfers approved by Dasuki. These claims remain matters for the criminal proceedings.

The seven Baba-Kusa statements crossed the investigation-to-trial boundary but did not become usable evidence. The judge ruled that the EFCC failed to prove compliance with the ACJA and excluded them. Their exclusion does not decide the fraud allegations. It decides only that those statements cannot be used in the case under the current ruling.