By Abdulwahab Abdulah and Jane Echewedo

Efforts by the Lagos State to formally begin the trial of the Trustees of the Synagogue Church of all Nations (SCOAN) and the two engineers involved in the construction of the collapsed six-storey Church guest house on Monday failed as a prosecution witness listed to testify in the matter was disallowed by the trial court.

This was sequel to the objections raised by the defence lawyers, who argued that the state counsel failed to adhere to the rules which required that the prosecution needs to front load (file) the witness’s statement before he was brought to the witness box.

The collapsed building at the Synagogue Church last year had left over 116 dead, majority of whom were South African citizens.

The SCOAN Trustees, the two engineers, Messrs Oladele Ogundeji and Akinbela Fatiregun and their companies, Hardrock Construction and Engineering Company and Jandy Trust Limited were last month arraigned on 111-count charge for their involvement in the September 12, 2014 collapse of the guest house.

The 111 count charges preferred against the defendants by the Lagos State Government borders on criminal negligence, manslaughter and failure to obtain building permit.

At the scheduled commencement of trial, Mrs. Idowu Alakija, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) informed the court that one of the 8 prosecution witnesses, Adebayo Musiliu Olayinka was in court and was ready to testify.

However, the lead defence counsel, Chief Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) objected to the witness giving evidence, stating that his witness statement was not forwarded to the defence team as stipulated by law.

Fagbemi argued that in criminal proceeding, the proper practice is for the prosecuting team to serve the defence with list of witnesses and and their statements.

He stated that among the eight witnesses listed by the state prosecuting counsel, only two of them had their statement front loaded and served on the defence team.

Fagbemi held that the essence of front loading witness statements is to allow the defence to adequately prepare for the cross examination of the witness, while insisting that allowing the witness to testify without a witness statement would amount to ambush against the defence.

Other defendants counsels in the matter, Mrs. Titi Akinlawon (SAN), Chief E.L Akpofure (SAN) and Olalekan Ojo also aligned themselves with the submission of Fagbemi.

Responding to the defence argument, Mrs. Alakija, the DPP insisted that the fact that the witness statement was not filed and served on the defence does not preclude the witness from testifying in court.

Ruling on the objection, Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo upheld the argument of the defence and insisted that the witness statement should be filed and served on them.

He subsequently adjourned the matter till June 1, 2016.