Tag: Metuh

A former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party( PDP), Chief Olisa Metuh, yesterday offered to refund the N400million he got from the Office of the National Security Adviser( ONSA) during the tenure of former National Security Adviser( NSA) Col. Sambo Dasuki.

He said he had been in talks with the Ministry of Justice, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other bodies on how to refund the money and resolve the issue.

The cash was part of the $2.1billion that was meant for arms purchase. The cash which was managed by ONSA, was allegedly diverted.

After many months in and out of detention and court, Metuh decided to repay the money which was illegally remitted into the account of his firm, Desra Nigeria Limited.

The ex-PDP spokesman made the announcement in a statement through his lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN).

He said although the cash was released to him by former President Goodluck Jonathan, he did not know the source as at the time.

He said since the EFCC presented in court a document on the source of the money, he had made up his mind to willingly refund the N400million.

He said with the development, he will continue to support the anti-corruption campaign of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, which is necessary to ensure probity in Nigeria

 The statement said: “In the light of the circumstances regarding the case of our client, Chief Olisa Metuh, with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), we want to explain the reasons for our client’s proposal to refund the N400 million released to him by former President Goodluck Jonathan, and which was expended on a project approved by the ex-President on national issues relating to his Presidency and the Federal Government at that time.

“We want to restate that at the time the money was released to him after his presentation to the ex-President, our client had no knowledge of the source, a fact that is now obvious from the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses.

“Our client had every cause to believe that the money was from the ex-President to whom he made presentation, received directives and rendered report and accounts accordingly.

“When the matter first came up and Chief Metuh was invited to the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) in December 2015, he requested to know the source of the money and expressed his readiness to make refunds if it was from government coffers, not minding that the money had been expended as directed by the former President.

“Officials at ONSA never got back to him as they promised, until his arrest by the EFCC in January 2016.

“ It was however while in court that a document was brought regarding the source of the money and since then, our client has made manifest his willingness to refund the money and has indeed approached his family, friends and associates to mobilise funds to refund the entire N400 million to the government regardless of the fact that the money had been expended based on the directives of the former President and that part of the money had been recovered from one of the prosecution witnesses.”

Metuh said he had started discussions with the EFCC and the Ministry of Justice to resolve the case and move on.

The statement added: “ We want to confirm that since then, we have been in talks with the Ministry of Justice, the EFCC and other necessary bodies on how to refund the money and resolve the issue.

“Our client occupied no government office. His commitment and dedication to his official duties have been confirmed by even prosecution witnesses. In this whole saga, he has been an unfortunate victim of circumstances. His refunding the money therefore goes to show his support for the anti-corruption war as well as serve as a testament to his sincerity, integrity and honesty in this matter.

“ There is no doubt that the prosecution has considerably embarked on some expenses in the course of this case. It is hoped that by not discounting the sum already recovered, whatever cost so far incurred would have been defrayed. By this, a critical objective of recovery of funds would no doubt be achieved.”

He pledged to lend his support to the anti-graft war of the Buhari administration in order to ensure probity in the country.

The statement said: “It is pertinent to restate our client’s continued support for the anti-corruption campaign, which is necessary to ensure probity in the affairs of Nigeria to the extent that it is conducted within the rule of law.

“ Finally, it is our client’s prayer that this nation shall come through this difficult time by the grace of the Almighty God.”

Former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman, Olisa Metuh, is now on admission at the Lagos University Hospital (LUTH), Lagos two weeks after he left the National Hospital, Abuja where he was once on bed rest.

His lawyer, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), disclosed this yesterday at the resumption of proceedings in Metuh’s trial before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Etiaba, who tendered a letter dated June 8, 2016 to support his position, said Metuh opted for LUTH after following his failure to secure the court’s nod to seek medical care abroad as was recommended by the National Hospital.

Although Justice Abang noted that the duration of his treatment was not indicated in a medical report issued by one Dr. O. O. Oyeleye, a Consultant Neurosurgeon at the National Hospital, Abuja, which Metuh submitted to support his request for adjournment, the judge adjourned to May 30.

Yesterday, Metuh was expected to resume his defence, but his lawyer told the court he was absent and was on admission in another hospital – LUTH.

He tendered the letter from LUTH to support his claim, and urged the court to adjourn proceedings to a later date.

Prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir queried the procedure adopted by Metuh, who relocated from one hospital to another without the knowledge of the court.

“If there is any case of referral for further evaluation of the 1st defendant, I would have thought that the hospital should have availed this court, out of courtesy, with a referral letter, showing the sequence of event, since the National Hospital earlier wrote this court about the admission of the 1st defendant.

“The instant letter seems to be coming from LUTH. That creates doubt in my mind as to whether the information contained in it is reliable. The letter also did not show as to when exactly the 1st defendant shall be discharged for him to return for his trial, because the letter said he is under observation and management for the next few weeks.

“The letter is dated June 8. It is curious that on the eve of the resumption of the court’s business, another letter is written.The court being human being, like us, who are all mortals, we expect a demonstration of good faith such that will not give room for doubt.We most reluctantly concede to adjournment,” Tahir said.

Responding, Etiaba denied the impression that his client was playing pranks.  He explained that Metuh  was actually ill and needed medical attention.

Etiaba said his client could not procure a referral note from the National Hospital management, which he said claimed that the hospital’s facility, being the best in the country could not reverse itself by referring Metuh to inferior Nigerian hospitals having earlier referred him for treatment abroad.

“The board of the National Hospital clearly took a position that it is the number one hospital in Nigeria and that they cannot reverse themselves and refer a matter, on which they had written that the 1st defendant be referred to London, to a lower hospital in Nigeria.

“So the hospital declined to issue a referral letter referring the 1st defendant to LUTH or any hospital in Nigeria. For this reason, the 1st defendant had to commenced afresh the procedure that he has been put through in the hospital.

“The fact of what the 1st defendant went through in the National Hospital, was reduced to an affidavit, but because he was restricted to the hospital, he could not approach the court to swear to it. It was that reason he approached LUTH for the letter. The letter is not from the blues, it is from LUTH.

“In all we do in this matter, we are not oblivious of the fact that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has the competence to investigate all the documents presented. We invite the EFCC to investigate the letter if it (EFCC) suspected it (the letter) is not what it says it is”,  Etiaba said.

On the letter not being specific on the time, he said: “No medical personnel can be specific on medical issues. What the author did was to give an indication as to the duration, which is what I expect a knowledgeable doctor should do”.

He urged the court to grant an adjournment to cover the period highlighted in the letter to allow the 1st defendant return and continue with his defence.

A lawyer representing Metuh’s company – Destra Investment Limited, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) supported Etiabaks position and urged the court to adjourn further proceedings.

He noted that even President Muhammadu Buhari, “despite the retinue of medical experts around him, chose to travel abroad for medical attention to save the only life he has so that he can be alive to continue with state work. ”

Ruling, the judge first expressed displeasure at the way his last ruling, in which he refused Metuh’s request to travel abroad, was reported in some on-line media.

He stated that at no time did he castigate the PDP for the sorry state of health facilities in the country. And that, that was not why Metuh’s request for foreign trip was rejected.

On Etiaba’s request for adjournment, Justice Abang frowned at the failure by the National Hospital to communicate to the court the circumstances leading to Metuh’s relocation to LUTH.

He noted that the letter from LUTH also did not state the exact duration of Metuh’s treatment. He however agreed to adjourn the case and fixed July 7 for continuation of proceedings.

The ex-PDP spokesman and his company are being tried before the court  for alleged unlawful receipt of N400m from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) and money laundering.

They are said to have received the money for contracts not executed. They were also accused of engaging in money laundering to the tune of $2m.

The scheduled resumption of proceedings in the trial of former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman, Olisa Metuh was put off yesterday by the Federal High Court, Abuja owing to the death of one of the court’s judges, Justice Steven Evoh Chukwu.

Justice Chukwu died early Wednesday in Abuja from yet to be disclosed ailment. Judges of the court did not sit yesterday as a result of the development.

Metuh’s trial before Justice Okon Abang of Court 10 has been rescheduled for today.

The ex-PDP spokesman and his company, Destra Investment Limited are being tried before the court  for alleged unlawful receipt of N400m from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) and money laundering.

They are said to have received the money for contracts not executed. They were also accused of engaging in money laundering to the tune of $2m.

At the last hearing in the case on May 25, Justice Abang rejected Metuh’s application for the release of his international passport to enable him travel to the United Kingdom (UK) on medical ground.

The judge, in a ruling, held that his court was without jurisdiction to, on its own, vary its earlier order directing Metuh to deposit his international passport with the court’s registrar for the duration o the trial.

Justice Abang said, since Meuh did not appeal the order of the court, asking him to submit his passport to the court, the order still subsists, until a suprior court directs otherwise.

“The law is settled and required no restatement that, when a court has made an order, the court lacks jurisdiction to set aside the order or vary the order,” the judge said.

Justice Abang was of the view that Metuh could not ask for the release of his passport as of right without placing sufficient materials before the court.

“This is not a sentimental issue. This is not the issue of sympathy. It is purely an issue of law. Chief Olisa Metuh cannot casually apply for the release of his passport as of right.

“Chief Olisa Metuh filed the application as if it a simple matter. It is not a simple matter.

“The first defendant did not, even in his application, pray the court for bail variation. The first defendant did not ask for an order for the court to vary its order. The first defendant only asked for the release of his passport as of right. This is an impossibility,” the judge said.

“Except that order is set aside on appeal, the first defendant will not have access to his passport during the pendency of his trial.

“The court is not a Father Christmas. The court court cannot give to the first defendant what he did not ask for even if the court is inclined to bend backwards for the sake of humanity.

“I want to remind parties that proceedings before a court is not based on sentiment. Don’t file a motion out of emotion. Look at the law.

“There for prayer 2 by Chief Olisa Metuh asking for the release of his passport lacks merit. It is a nullity and ought to have been sought for in this court,” Justice Abang said.

The family of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, has said that the embattled politician is ready to refund the N400 million from the amount he allegedly collected for the re-election of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

The family expressed worry over his state of health, adding that it may worsen, if he is not allowed to go abroad for medical check-up.

The family raised the alarm in a statement by Chief Gilbert Metuh that Methu’s life is in danger.

The National Publicity Secretary is standing trial for collecting the money.

The family said: “Since his arrest and even up to about a week ago, our son has made several overtures to the arresting authority for him to refund the money since they now claim in court that it came from government coffers. All efforts have been unsuccessful.

 “It is instructive that, out of over 300 names listed as having received money from the ONSA, all those who offered to refund money were not arraigned in court.  Our son is the only one whose offer to refund money was rejected and has been arraigned in court and his case given accelerated hearing. On each trial date, the hostility in the courtroom is palpable.

 “The offer to refund the money to the Federal Government is still open and the government is yet to accept the offer. It is, therefore, clear to us that the intention is not the recovery of funds, but a clear persecution of our son.”

 The family added: “Our son was diagnosed with a spinal cord problem in 2004. He has consistently managed it over this period. However, due to the treatments he received while in custody, the situation got aggravated. In the course of his trial, the situation deteriorated, especially after he fell at a meeting in the party office for which he was rushed to the National Hospital and was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit.

“Notwithstanding the grave medical condition, he still kept his court date the very next morning in spite of medical advice by the doctors. On another such occasion he vomited in court and had to be rushed back to the hospital where he is lying critically ill.”

 The family wondered why the Federal High Court, Abuja refused to grant leave to Methuh to travel abroad, despite extending the same privilege to other suspects.

  The family said the party chieftain is on admission at the National Hospital, where his spinal ailment is fast deteriorating, adding that he relies on palliatives before the corrective surgery.

  The family added: “Our concern now is that that our son should not be sentenced to a life in a wheel chair especially as we believe that the paramount interest of the authorities should rather be more on the recovery of funds.

“In this case, our son has from the onset shown his willingness to refund the money rather than dragging in other party members involved in the said assignment.”

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has held that Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited, must answer charges of money laundering brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The appellate court, in a judgment yesterday, upheld the March 9 ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against Metuh and his company, requiring them to enter defence.

A three-man bench of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the objections raised by the prosecution against two appeals by Metuh and his company, dismissed the appeals having also considered them on merit.

Justice Abdul Aboki, who led the three-man panel, read the lead judgments in both appeals, which Justices T. Y. Hassan and M. Mustapher (other members of the panel) agreed with.

Metuh and his company are being tried on seven-count before the Federal High Court, Abuja on charges of money laundering.

At the completion of the prosecution’s case earlier this year, having called eight witnesses, the court called on the defence to open its case.

Rather than conducting their defence, Metuh and Destra elected to make a no-case submission, which Justice Abang rejected in the March 9 ruling.

Justice Abang was of the view that the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the court to call on them to enter defence.

Metuh’s lawyer Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and lawyer to his company, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), in both their appeals, faulted Justice Abang’s reasons for rejecting their clients’ no-case submissions.

They urged the appellate court to set aside Justice Abang’s decision, uphold their clients’ no-case submissions and quash the charges against them.

In both judgments yesterday, the Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection raised by the prosecution (listed as the 1st respondent) to the effect that the appeals by Metuh and Destra were incompetent.

The court held that they failed to comply with the requirement in Section 242(1) that an appellant, who is appealing interlocutory decision, on either grounds of facts or mixed law and facts, must first obtain the leave of either the trial or appellate court before filing a notice of appeal.

After upholding the preliminary objection, the court still proceeded to decide the appeals on merits.

It held, after examining the submissions of parties that the appeals were without merit and dismissed them.

In the first judgment on the appeal by Metuh, Justice Aboki identified one issue for determination, which was whether or not the prosecution has establish a prima facie case against Metuh to require him to defend himself.

Justice Aboki, after analysing the argument of parties, resolved the sole issue against Metuh.

“I have carefully examined the seven-count charge against the appellant in the instant case. It was evident from the case made out against the appellant that the witness led by the 1st respondent testified to facts in respect of the charge on which the appellant was arraigned.

“The evidence led by the 1st respondent’s witness was not discredited in cross-examination. The trial remains on-going. It is my view that there is the need for the appellant to either deny or offer explanation.

“The trial court was, therefore, right to hold that evidence on record as it relates to the circumstances of this case has raised a number of issues, which the appellants is required to address,” he said.

On the questions raised by Justice Abang regarding the issues he (the judge) felt the appellant (Metuh) must address, the appellate court said the questions were in order and did not amount to the judge descending into the arena of conflict, as argued by the appellant.

“It is my view that the questions posed by the trial court were not meant to shift the burden of proof to the appellant and not a breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing as contended by the appellant.

“They are rhetoric questions as rightly observed by counsel to the 1st respondent.

“The justice of the case demands that where a prima facie case is established against the appellant in a no-case submission, as in the instant case, the appellant is entitled to give its explanation as to what transpired. That is what the trial judge is saying.

“Also, on the appellant’s contention that the trial court descended into the arena of conflict to pre-determine matters before him, is misconceived.

“This lone issue is resolved in favour of the 1std respondent. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed,” Justice Aboki said.

The court entered similar decision in the appeal filed by Onwugbufor for Destra.

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja yesterday rejected an application by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh for the release of his international passport to enable him travel to the United Kingdom (UK) on medical ground.

The judge, in a ruling, held that his court was without jurisdiction to, on its own, vary its earlier order directing Metuh to deposit his international passport with the court’s registrar for the duration of the trial.

Justice Abang said, since Meuh did not appeal the order of the court, asking him to submit his passport to the court, the order still subsists, until a suprior court directs otherwise.

“The law is settled and required no restatement that, when a court has made an order, the court lacks jurisdiction to set aside the order or vary the order,” the judge said.

Justice Abang was of the view that Metuh could not ask for the release of his passport as of right without placing sufficient materials before the court.

“This is not a sentimental issue. This is not the issue of sympathy. It is purely an issue of law. Chief Olisa Metuh cannot casually apply for the release of his passport as of right.

“Chief Olisa Metuh filed the application as if it a simple matter. It is not a simple matter.

“The first defendant did not, even in his application, pray the court for bail variation. The first defendant did not ask for an order for the court to vary its order. The first defendant only asked for the release of his passport as of right. This is an impossibility.

“Except that order is set aside on appeal, the first defendant will not have access to his passport during the pendency of his trial.

“The court is not a Father Christmas. The court cannot give to the first defendant what he did not ask for even if the court is inclined to bend backwards for the sake of humanity.

“I want to remind parties that proceedings before a court is not based on sentiment. Don’t file a motion out of emotion. Look at the law.

“Therefore prayer 2 by Chief Olisa Metuh asking for the release of his passport lacks merit. It is a nullity and ought not to have been sought for in this court,” Justice Abang said.

He noted that Metuh failed to provide  evidence to prove that his ailment, which he claimed is spinal cord-related, and for which he intended to visit the London Royal Hospital, cannot be treated in any of the nation’s teaching hospitals.

The judge said although he could not fault the medical report signed by a doctor at the National Hospital Abuja, Dr. Charles Okechukwu Ugwuanyi, recommending Metuh for treatment in London, it did not indicate that the ailment could not be treated in Nigeria.

Justice Abang said, since the prosecution has expressed fear that Metuh may jump bail, there was the need for the court to be “careful in deciding such complex application. What the court needs to do is to balance the conflicting rights of parties”.

Justice Abang noted  that the further affidavit filed by Metuh in support of his application was neither dated nor deposed to before the court’s commissioner for oath.

He said since affidavit was incompetent, the court ignored all facts deposed to in the further affidavit in arriving at its decision.

The judge ruled that having refused prayer 2, it would be of no moment to grant prayer 1 which sought the court’s leave to enable Metuh to travel abroad for the treatment.

“The first defendant is asking the court to set aside the court order made on January 16, 2016, directing him to deposit his passport with the Chief Registrar of the Court.

“This is a legal impossibility. This court has no jurisdiction to do so except the appellate court,” the judge said.

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh has urged a Federal High Court in Abuja for permission to travel to the United Kingdom for five weeks on medical ground.

The request is contained in an application filed by Metuh’s lawyer, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), seeking the release of his client’s travel passport for that purpose.

The court had, while admitting Metuh to bail on January 19 this year, ordered him to submit his passport to the court. The court allowed him the freedom to apply for its release when he intends to travel. Metuh,  in the application, stated that his decision to seek treatment abroad was informed by the advice by a neurosurgeon at the National Hospital, Abuja following the injury he allegedly sustained after falling from a chair at the national secretariat on April 26.

The PDP spokesman is being tried with his company, Destra Investments Limited, on a seven-count charge, in which he is accused of fraudulent receipt of N400m from the Office of the National Security Adviser in November 2014 to fund the PDP presidential campaign ahead of the 2015 poll.

They are also accused of involvement in money laundering offences involving cash transaction of $2m without passing through a financial institution.

Etiaba complained that his client’s health condition worsened overnight.

Etiaba told the court that Metuh was rushed to hospital at about 1am on Thursday following a sudden change in his condition.

The lawyer said he read his client’s text message about the overnight development on Thursday morning but insisted that the defendant must attend the day’s proceedings.

He said when he met Metuh at the court’s car park yesterday, he  was informed that he had vomited in his car.

“Waking up this morning, I read a text from the first defendant (Metuh), informing me that he was rushed to the National Hospital by 1am. My lord, I read that text this morning when I woke up and I responded that whatever it is, he must be in court.

“I drove in this morning and he (Metuh) was at the car park in his car. On getting there I realised that he had vomited profusely and his brother-in-law, Mr. Andy, narrated how he was rushed to the hospital last night.

“On getting to the hospital, they met a lady doctor who said the nurses were on strike but they administered injection and drugs to him.

“They also gave him a room but he was advised that since they had given him medical attention that he should go home because the injection administered to him would make him to sleep.

“He was also informed that because of the strike action, the only available room was not cleaned up. He was advised to come back to the hospital by 8am this morning. He was only here based on my advice.

“Our application this morning is for an adjournment. But for the reason that the 1st defendant is very weak; there is need to report back to the hospital because he cannot stand trial.

“I, therefore, plead with my lord to indulge us because this is a life threatening-situation. The defendant needs to stay alive to face his trial. This is a passionate appeal,” Etiaba said.

Lawyer to Metuh’s company, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), supported the application for adjournment.

Prosecuting lawyer Sylvanus Tahir described Etiaba’s narration as “oral affidavit”.  He, however said he would not oppose the application for adjournment since it was in relation to the defendant’s health.

But, it was learnt yesterday that the prosecution intends to oppose the application.

“It is the prosecution’s position that since Metuh was yet to produce credible evidence to support his claim to ill-health, he should be ordered to complete his defence before engaging in any trip,” he said.

Metuh has called only three witnesses since he opened his defence about a month ago.

Ruling, Justice Justice Okon Abang said the issues raised by Etiaba were merely “sentimental” as there was no evidence apart from the lawyer’s oral submission to back the ill-health claim.

The judge said the defendant ought to have invited the doctor who attended to Metuh in the hospital to give evidence on oath with respect to the defendant’s ill-health.

“The learned counsel for the first defendant raised sentimental issues that are not relevant to the court in making a decision on the application for

“This is a court of record. There is no evidence of a qualified doctor to the effect that the defendant is not fit. What is before the court is an oral submission by the first defendant.

“The learned counsel for the 1st defendant cannot give evidence from the bar. It would have been better  for the doctor who attended to him to be in court today to give evidence on oath. The court cannot speculate,” he said.

Justice Abang said although Metuh’s lawyer has failed to adduce tenable evidence to support his claim that his client was ill, the court would adjourn the case because “the court is also human”.

The judge adjourned to May 23 and directed that the trial would subsequently proceed on a day-to-day basis in line with provisions of Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja has postponed judgment in a N500 million suit against Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh, his wife, Kanayo and one of their aides, Oche Gambo.

Justice Folashade Ojo, on March 10, this year, scheduled judgment for May 18 after parties adopted their final written addresses.

When parties got to the court on Wednesday, its registrar announced that the judgment was not ready and that parties would be informed when it was ready.

Metuh and others were sued by owners and some workers of British Nigerian Academy, Abuja – a school formerly attended by the PDP spokesman’s son, Derrick – for allegedly forcing themselves into the school premises on February 19, 2011 and assaulting two of the school’s workers for confiscating Derrick’s mobile telephone.

Metuh’s wife and son were said to have visited her nephew, Kamsi Aghaji (a student), when an official of the school, Miss Amauche Igbe, allegedly saw Derrick giving his phone to some students in the boys’ hostel, in violation of school rules that no phone is allowed in hostels. The phone was seized.

The plaintiffs – British Nigerian Academy, Kola Pele and Hamzat Maftau – said in an amended statement of claim that Kanayo, after being unable to secure the release of her son’s phone, allegedly invited her husband.

They stated that Metuh, “accompanied by armed mobile policemen, arrived at the school premises in a convoy of three black jeeps, all with head lamps on and the drivers navigating the vehicles dangerously with reckless abandon, almost colliding with some students, who were clearing up after visiting day and this drew the attention of many students, staff and some parents, who were leaving the school premises after visiting”.

The plaintiffs added: “The 1st defendant (Metuh) alighted from his vehicle at the entrance of the Sports Hall of the 1st plaintiff (the school) and demanded to see the 2nd plaintiff (Pele) and, upon locating the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st defendant demanded forcefully, that his son’s phone be returned to him with immediate effect. But the 2nd plaintiff refused to release the phone.

“The 1st defendant then proceeded to grab the throat of the 2nd plaintiff and started to hit him several times with the 3rd defendant (Gambo, Metuh’s bodyguard) joining in the assault in the presence of a large crowd of staff, students and parents, who looked on in great fear.

 “The 3rd plaintiff tried to act as peacemaker in the scuffle and when attempting to pacify the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant kicked the 3rd plaintiff, knocking him totally off balance and causing him to land on his head.

“The 1st defendant seized the 2nd plaintiff’s office keys and mobile phone and threatened not to return them until his son’s mobile phone was returned in exchange. It was only after several staff and parents pleaded with the 2nd plaintiff to return the phone for fear of serious injury and death being inflicted on him by the 1st and 3rd defendants that the 2nd plaintiff reluctantly returned Derrick’s phone to the 1st defendant.”