The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, presented its third prosecution witness, PW3, Bamaiyi Mairiga, a forensic expert in the Forensic Department of the EFCC Headquarters, Abuja, in the trial of one Babatunde Keshinro, a former Head, Commercial Banking with one of the new generation banks in Nigeria, for an alleged N10m fraud before Justice I.O.Ijelu of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja.
The EFCC is prosecuting Keshinro on a nine-count charge bordering on forgery and stealing to the tune of N10 million.
He was initially tried before Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, before whom he pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.
However, the trial could not be concluded before the retirement of the trial judge.
The case was, after that, transferred to Justice Ijelu.
The defendant, again, pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the witness, led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, H.U. Kofarnaisa, narrated the role the Forensic Department played in investigating the alleged offence.
Mairiga noted that he did know the defendant and only used international standard techniques to forensically analyse the documents forwarded to the Department from the Lagos Zonal Command of the EFCC.
“As a trained Forensic Document Examiner who has undergone foreign training, I am skilled in forensic analysis of travel documents, analysis of alterations and signatures, among others,” he said.
According to him, the Forensic Department got the request for the analysis of some signatures for further comparison.
“When the Department got the request, we carried out detailed forensic examinations in line with best international practices; and after the analysis, we made our report as a response to the request,” he said.
He further shed light on the various international techniques used in analysing the specimen signatures included in the forwarded documents as well as the disputed ones sent for comparison.
“Both disputed documents and specimens were analysed and further comparisons were carried out.
“The conclusion from the forensic analysis was that from pen movement and other techniques used, the author of the specimen signature did not sign the disputed documents,” he said.
He, thereafter, identified Exhibit P9, being the request sent to the Forensic Department which was already before the court.
He further identified the report of the forensic analysis carried out, which was sent in response to the request.
When the prosecution sought to tender the said report, there was no objection raised by the defence counsel, V. Amusan-Giwa.
The document was, thereafter, admitted in evidence as Exhibit P10.
Under cross-examination, the witness noted that there was no need to request further documents, adding that “the author of the specimen documents did not sign the disputed signatures and documents.”
Justice Ijelu adjourned the matter till December 5, 2024 “for continuation of trial and conclusion of the case of the prosecution.”
