Date: 2017-03-24

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) yesterday revealed that it does not have a formal report on its probe of assets of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki because the directive to probe Saraki's assets in 2015 was made orally by the authorities.

The bureau which noted that the Saraki case was the only probe it conducted without any written report, however, stated that it was the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that was responsible for the probe of the defendant.

Saraki is being prosecuted by the federal government on false assets declaration. The Head of Intelligence and Investigation Unit of the CCB, Mr. Samuel Madojemu, who made the disclosure during cross-examination by Saraki's lawyer, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN), added that it was the first time in his 20 years on the job that he would not submit a formal report on an investigation. Also, the bureau in addition, admitted that the Senate President actually declared his assets as required by law including that of his wife and children. The bureau admitted this while reading before the tribunal Saraki's family assets both in Nigeria and abroad as contained in the various assets declaration forms submitted at the CCB.

At the resumed trial, Madojemu said the investigation which led to the arraignment of Saraki in 2015 before the tribunal was actually carried out by the operatives of the EFCC.

He admitted that his own role and those of CCB were limited to the review of the EFCC report and that he and CCB only compared the asset forms of Saraki with the findings of the EFCC.

He maintained that he was invited orally into a team that reviewed the EFCC report and compared the asset forms of Saraki and that the CCB has no written report on the outcome of the revision of the EFCC report.

Answering, questions, he maintained that former Lagos State Governor Senator Bola Tinubu, who was investigated along with Saraki, was given the privileged of being invited by the CCB to make in writing clarifications on the discrepancies in the asset forms he (Tinubu) submitted to the CCB and that the same gesture was not extended to Saraki when his asset forms were been investigated.

The witness, however, said the CCB cannot be blamed for not inviting Saraki because it saw the need to limit its investigation to the asset forms endorsed by Saraki on oath.

Answering another question on the alleged double salary received by Saraki after he had left office as Kwara State Governor and when he was in the Senate, the witness said that the CCB did not consult with the Kwara State Government to confirm the claim but only based its acceptance of the claim on the report of the EFCC and a bank account of Saraki with the Access Bank.

He said he would not know whether it was pension that was been paid to Saraki by the Kwara State government because he has no access to the Kwara State law on Pension scheme for former political holders.

When asked to point out in the Access Bank account where double salaries were allegedly paid to Saraki the witness said: "I just sighted a statement of account of the defendant; I did not study it, and so I will not be in position so say more on the salary issue."

Madojemu also told the tribunal that there was no provision in the CCB Asset Declaration Form for any declarant to declare properties owned by the declarant's companies and that also there was no provision for cash lodgment in the asset forms.

On his earlier evidence that Saraki did not declare his property in London in respect of any mortgage, the witness said: "I did not consult with Fortis Bank of London to know whether the six bedroom bungalow at South West London was redeemed with the bank loan."