Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled judgment for February 25, 2020, in the trial of former spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Olisa Metuh.
Metuh and his firm, Dextra Investment Limited, are being tried for allegedly receiving unlawful N400 million from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).
He is also accused of carrying out a transaction of about $2 million without going through a financial institution.
Justice Okon Abang chose the judgment date yesterday after parties adopted their final written addresses.
During trial, the prosecution tendered many documents in evidence, among them a Diamond Bank document which captured details of the transactions carried out by Metuh and Dextra Investment Limited.
The prosecution, led by Sylvanus Tahir, called eight witnesses and prayed the court convict Metuh based on evidence established against him.
Defence lawyers – Abel Ozioko (for Metuh) and Tochukwu Onwugbufor, SAN, (for Dextra) – urged the court to discharge and acquit their clients on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences.
Read Also: Court rejects Metuh’s ‘no-case’ submission
Adopting his client’s final address, Ozioko noted that 11 witnesses, including a prosecution witness, testified that they received various sums of money from Metuh in cash and cheques, as contained in exhibit G20, which remained unchallenged.
The lawyer said Metuh’s testimony was corroborated by the witnesses that former President Goodluck Jonathan gave him an assignment on security issues, which was not challenged by the prosecution.
He drew the court’s attention to a document, which he said was the e-payment mandate, with certification showing that all payments on the N400 million complied with the statutory requirement.
Ozioko noted that instead of vilifying the ex-President, he should take credit for effectively handling the insecurity in the country before the 2015 elections, using Metuh to achieve peace and oneness for the country.
The lawyer argued that the prosecution did not fulfil the condition to establish that the source of the money was illicit to warrant the alleged money laundering charge to be file against his client.
He urged the court to hold that having failed to establish any case against Metuh, it was natural to discharge and acquit him.
Onwugbufor challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear matters bordering on simple contract.
The lawyer argued that the argument about the source of money should first be determined by the court to establish a case of money laundering.
He noted the N400 million was legitimately provided and transferred to the second defendant.
Onwugbufor argued that all through the trial, the prosecution did not respond to the origin of the money, adding: “The failure of the prosecution to respond to this issue, which is highlighted in our addresses, is deemed to have accepted and admitted all the points and issues raised therein.
“Having conceded same, the court is urged to hold that the origin of the money is legitimate and if that is so, the entire charge of money laundering must fail.”
In a counter-argument, Tahir faulted the defendants’ challenge of the court’s jurisdiction.
He contended that money laundering is a global offence and that Section 15(6) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011 catalogues the list of offences that can give rise to money laundering, including criminal breach of trust.
The lawyer submitted that under that law, “there is nowhere that prosecution must prove predicate offence before money laundering offences can be proved”.
Leave a Reply