A cardinal principle of Law is that
he who asserts must prove. Fayose has simply denied all the allegations against him. Therefore, the ball is in the court of Ekiti House of Assembly to prove their allegations against the governor.
Going into the substance of his denial proper, I observe that in his bid to offer a clever defence of the allegations against him, he may have shot himself in the foot. For instance, when he makes this statement:
However for the records, on allegation 0ne (1) I don’t have any current operational account in the Bank of America, United States of America.
Or this one:
On allegation two (2)- The account Nos----50633925 and 60642924 mentioned are no longer operational as claimed and account No---80809594 is not known to me.
He leaves himself open to the potentially fatal rebuttal by the panel, that the accounts in question
existed whilst he governed the state.
That they are no longer operational does not mean that the illegality has ceased to exist with his closing of the account. In other words, he is couching this particular defence as if to say that for the act to be illegal, it must be continuous and subsisting. The accounts should not have been open, or operational
at any time he was governor of the state.
A word of caution however; it depends on the phraseology of the allegations against him. It would be a pity if this guy's defence succeeds on technicalities. I hope the allegations were properly framed to take into account, this sort of hair-splitting defence.
DoubleWahala