R. Adm SB Kolawole as FOC West sometimes in August 2004 lost a vessel MT. African Pride being a property (prize ship) belonging to the Federal Government of Nigeria, which had been entrusted unto your care as FOC West.
The charges were signed by the prosecutor, Brig.-Gen. Donatus Idada Ikponmwen (rtd). The three pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
After the charges were read, the prosecutor addressed the court after which he called the first witness, Commodore Sunday Lawal Bafe, Director of Signals, Naval Headquarters, Abuja, who worked directly with Read Admiral Agbiti, testified. Its evidence went thus:
Can you briefly tell this court who you are as well as your duties in the Nigerian Navy?
I am Commodore Sunday Lawal Bejeh, Director of Naval Signals, Headquarters, Abuja. I am responsible for the training and operations regarding communications. I advise on the control, maintenance, training of communication officers and ratings. I liaise with communication organisations, including Nigeria Communications Commission, Ministry of Communications on behalf of Nigerian Navy.
Can you take your mind back, starting from 8th of October, 2003 up till now. Did you record any experience particularly as it relates to your official function in the Nigerian Navy and in connection with the MT. African Pride?
Regarding the issue relating to MT. African Pride, there was a signal, which was sent from FOC to the headquarters. Thereafter, Rear Admiral Agbiti sent for me to raise a signal (letter) for the ship to be released on the ground that the ship had valid documents. After a while, the Ministry of Justice, through its permanent secretary sent another signal to me stating that the ministry wanted to know where the ship was located for further action. The letter was dated February 17. After the receipt of this signal, again, Rear Admiral Agbiti called me to his office and told me that there was a signal, which the Police were dangling all about. He said that I endorsed the said signal and he ordered me to look for the signal anywhere it could be found.
At this point, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to Agbiti, the first accused, objected. He said that he had been served with the written voluntary statement of the witness. He expressed surprise that some of the evidence being given by the witness were not contained in the statement served on him.
But the prosecution opposed Olanipekun's position, saying that the accused persons were only entitled to the summary of evidence and not the details as canvassed by the defence.
He added that he had met that condition. He also said that there were differences in criminal proceedings and a court-martial, adding that he did not see why the proceedings should be hindered at all.
But Olanipekun maintained that the new charge sheet was very deceitful, saying they knew the earlier charge sheet but the one brought in and circulated yesterday morning was not known to them.
He said the conspiracy charge was not in the last charge sheet.
Commenting on the earlier submission of the government's lawyer, Olanipekun said there was a difference between summary and abstract evidence.
He said while summary evidence gives room for the accused to personally appear in the matter, abstract evidence could be taken in the absence of the accused. He then said that with the position of things, they were handicapped to properly cross-examine the witness.
The immediate past Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President added that once the accused were ready to go on with the matter, it was mandatory that all their evidence to be used against them must have been served on the accused at least 24 hours before the continuation of the trial.
Olanipekun added that they were entitled to fair hearing.
Replying, the prosecution said that the standard of fairness in the military could not be said to be the same with that of civil case. Since October 18, 2004, the summary evidence, which the defence were now contesting, had been taken and signed by the accused. And now that the witness was already giving his testimony in the hearing of the accused and their counsel and if at the end of the day, they wanted more time, then, the court could grant them so as to react to the evidence.
At this point, the court overruled the objection raised by the defence and ordered the witness to continue.`
