How EFCC forced me to write statement – Ex-Air Force chief, Mamu

A former Chief of Administration, Nigerian Air Force (NAF) headquarters, Air Vice Marshal Mohammed Alkali Mamu (rtd), on Monday told Justice Salisu Garba of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that he was tutored and teleguided by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in making his statement.

He is standing trial on a four count amended charges of corruption and bribery preferred against him by the commission.

Mamu, while being led in evidence by his counsel, Chief Joseph Daudu, SAN, narrated how the EFCC suppressed part of his statement and also threatened to involve his two daughters should he fail to refund the money he was being accused of collecting as bribe.

He explained that his request that his lawyers be present during his interrogation and his subsequent writing of his statement was turned down on the grounds that all they were after was the recovery of funds.

He said though he was accompanied to the EFCC’s office by one Commander Sunday Jigawa who was at that time NAF Deputy Director, the operatives refused to allow him be by his side.

“The first statement I wrote is not before this court. The additional statement marked n1 and n4 obtained from St1 was removed from the statement I made.

”Again I noticed that the supporting documents I submitted both in st1 and St 2 are not before this court,” he said.

Mamu told the court that his vehicles impounded by the EFCC are still in the custody of the anti-graft agency and prayed the court for an order to return the vehicles and or replace them.

He further prayed the court to compel the EFCC operatives to return the sum of $300,000 and N5.9million they obtained from him.

Prosecuting counsel, Sylvanus Tahir who had opposed the tendering of the 2nd document said, the documents were never part of the proceedings.

Tahir, wondered why a document addressed to the AGF will be tendered to a different agency of government and added that they were gross violation of Section 102,103 and 104 of the Evidence Act and therefore cannot be admissible.

Justice Garba adjourned to 13 and 14 December for ruling on the objections of prosecution counsel to the admissibility of some of the documents and for cross examination by the prosecution.