By Court Reporter
A Magistrates’ Court has set aside an earlier order foreclosing a key prosecution witness in the corruption trial involving two senior officials of the National Water and Electricity Company (NAWEC), ruling that the interests of justice require that the witness be allowed to complete his testimony.
Delivering the ruling on Wednesday, Magistrate A. Manneh granted an application by the State seeking to reverse a foreclosure order issued on March 2, 2026, against the prosecution’s first witness (PW1) in the case of The State v. Cherno Omar Cham and Babou Secka.
Cham, NAWEC’s Finance Director, and Secka, the utility’s Treasury Manager, are facing charges of official corruption contrary to Section 86(a) of the Criminal Code and abuse of office contrary to Section 90 of the same Code.
According to the charge sheet filed by Principal State Counsel M.D. Mballow on February 25, 2025, the accused allegedly solicited bribes ranging from D2 to D5 per metre from Dheeraj Vatnan, Manager of DIVYA Trading, in connection with a contract to supply NAWEC with 476,500 twisted connection cables.
The State alleges that the two officials, while conducting an official market survey and negotiating cable prices on behalf of NAWEC, abused their positions by seeking payments outside established procurement procedures, conduct said to be prejudicial to the interests of the national utility.
The trial has largely revolved around the testimony of PW1, the prosecution’s sole witness since the matter commenced in February 2025. On March 2, 2026, the witness failed to appear before the court. State Counsel K. Drammeh informed the court only that the witness was unavailable and did not oppose a defence application to foreclose the witness. Citing repeated adjournments occasioned by the witness’s absence, the court granted the application.
The prosecution subsequently filed a motion on March 6, 2026, supported by an affidavit sworn by Fatou Waggeh, a Legal Clerk at the Ministry of Justice. The State argued that PW1 is a material witness whose evidence is essential to the case and contended that the foreclosure order was made without full consideration of the circumstances surrounding the proceedings.
The prosecution further submitted that, rather than foreclosing the witness, the court could have issued a witness summons or bench warrant to compel his attendance.
The application was vigorously opposed by both accused persons.
Counsel for the first accused, Mrs. S. Twum, appearing alongside M.C. Joiner and L. Sanyang, argued that the prosecution had demonstrated a pattern of delay and indolence by relying on a single witness over an extended period despite numerous adjournments. She maintained that the foreclosure order was properly made and further contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its earlier decision because it had become functus officio.
Twum urged the court to dismiss the application and relied on several authorities, including Alhaji Momodou Jobe v. Alh. Abdoulie Dandeh Njie, United Democratic Party & Others v. Attorney General & Another, and Nigerian Army v. Major Jacob Iyela.
Counsel for the second accused, L.A. Ceesay, assisted by A.K. Sarr, similarly opposed the motion, describing it as an abuse of court process and arguing that the court could not sit on appeal over its own ruling.
In determining the application, Magistrate Manneh identified two issues: whether the court lacked jurisdiction on the basis that it was functus officio, and whether the foreclosure order should be set aside in light of constitutional guarantees, the Criminal Procedure Act 2025, and the broader interests of justice.
On the jurisdictional question, the magistrate held that the doctrine of functus officio applies only to final decisions that conclusively determine the rights of parties. The foreclosure order, she found, was merely interlocutory and procedural in nature, as it neither determined the guilt or innocence of the accused nor brought the proceedings to an end.
“The court retains inherent powers to control its proceedings and prevent injustice,” Magistrate Manneh ruled, resolving the first issue in favour of the prosecution.
Addressing the second issue, the court acknowledged the defence’s concerns regarding delays and repeated adjournments. However, Magistrate Manneh held that those concerns had to be balanced against the need to ensure that justice is done on the merits of the case.
The magistrate noted that PW1 had already commenced his testimony and had undergone partial cross-examination. Maintaining the foreclosure order, she said, would permanently deprive the court of evidence from a witness already before it.
Relying on the Nigerian Supreme Court decision in Bello v. Attorney-General of Oyo State, Magistrate Manneh emphasized that courts exist to achieve substantial justice rather than to enforce technicalities.
She further observed that restoring the witness would not prejudice the accused, who would retain their full right to cross-examine him. Conversely, excluding the witness’s evidence could result in the matter being determined without the benefit of all relevant facts.
Consequently, the court set aside the foreclosure order of March 2, 2026, and restored PW1 to the witness box for the continuation and completion of his testimony and cross-examination.
Magistrate Manneh also directed the prosecution to ensure the witness’s attendance on the next adjourned date, warning that failure to do so could attract sanctions or other consequential orders. She further ordered that the trial proceed expeditiously to avoid further delay and safeguard the rights of all parties.
The parties were informed of their right to appeal the ruling.
The matter was adjourned to July 28, 2026.
Comments are closed.