Tag: Metuh

It was a bad day at the court yesterday for the spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, as he failed in efforts to stall proceedings in his trial, following which Justice Okon Abang ordered him to open his defence on Monday, failing which he will lose the opportunity.

Metuh and his company, Destra Investment limited, are being tried before the Federal High Court, Abuja for unlawfully receiving N400m from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) and engaging in money laundering.

Yesterday, Justice Abang, in a series of rulings, rejected all applications by Metuh and Destra, which the judge said were only intended to stall proceedings in the case. Yesterday’s proceedings lasted for about seven hours (from 9am to after 4pm).

 At a point, Metuh, who had complained that he was not allowed to sit in court, pleaded with the court to allow him walk for some minutes, having sat for a long time. The proceedings were later suspended about 10 minutes in view of Metuh’s request.

The first ruling was on a motion in which the defendants urged the judge to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case and refer it back to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.

The defendants hinged the motion on their claim, among others, that the judge had exhibited bias in his handling of the case. They had made similar allegations in a petition to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, which Justice Auta rejected and directed Justice Abang to continue to hear the case.

Dismissing the motion yesterday, Justice Abang upheld the argument by the prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, to the effect that the defendants failed to provide sufficient facts to support their claim that the judge was biased.

The judge also refused another motion by Metuh and his company, praying the court to adjourn the case indefinitely, pending the determination of an application for stay of proceedings which they filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

In refusing the application, the judge held that such prayer would have been granted in deference to the Court of Appeal, if the case was a civil one.

He was of the view that the case, being a criminal one, the extant law regulating criminal proceedings in the country – the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 frowns at such interlocutory (mid-proceedings) adjournment with its provision in Section 306.

The judge also noted that there was no order by the Court of Appeal staying proceedings before his court and that, by virtue of the provision of Section 306 of the ACJA, it would be wrong for the court to grant such adjournment.

Justice Abang equally rejected some other oral applications for adjournment made by lawyers to Metuh and his company.

One of such application was by Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) who urged the court to adjourn the case on the grounds that he was briefed the previous day to represent Metuh’s company, even when both Metuh and his company were, before yesterday, jointly represented by a team of lawyers made up of five Senior Advocates.

Onwugbufor, at the commencement of proceedings, urged the court to adjourn to enable him apply and receive records of proceedings in the case, to familiarise himself with the case, to receive proper briefing from his client and to allow him sufficient time to prepare for his client’s defence.

He argued that it was the right of his client to be accorded all the necessary facilities, including sufficient time to enable him prepare his defence.

The Senior Advocate complained that the Court’s Registrar and prosecution lawyer refused to accept the letter he brought to court yesterday, seeking adjournment on the ground that he was just briefed.

Responding, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir argued that the team of lawyers representing the defendants have failed to comply with the condition precedent, as provided in Section 349(7) and (8) of the ACJA to qualify Onwugbufor to appear in the case as a new lawyer for Destra.

He argued that by the provision, a lawyer withdrawing from a case is required to inform the court at least, three days before the next hearing date.

“Section 349 (7) & (8) of the ACJA provides for how a counsel in a matter should conduct his case and procedure for disengagement.

“Up till now, there is no such notice of disengagement from the firms of the five Senior Advocates, namely Onyechi Ikpeazu, Chris Uche, Ifedayo Adedipe, Emeka Etiaba and Goody Uche, who have been representing the defendants from inception.

“There is no notice of withdrawal by any of the lawyers mentioned either in group or individually. If such letter exists, it has not been served on the prosecution. Rather than comply with the law, we are told that a counsel, seeking to come in, who has not properly been allowed in, is writing for an adjournment.

“Without complying with Section 349(7)(8), this court cannot take cognisance of the presence of Onwugbufor SAN,” Tahir said.

On Onwugbufor’s argument that refusing his application for adjournment would amount to denial of fair hearing, Tahir argued that that issue does not arise.

“Fair hearing envisaged in the Constitution is to a party in the case and not to his counsel, who seeks to come in at the 11th hour, without following due procedure.

“Right from the inception of this case, no party has been denied fair hearing. The defendants have not claimed that proceedings were conducted in a language they do not understand.

“There is no complaint that they have been denied the right to legal representation. In fact they have a consortium of five Senior Advocates and a legion of junior lawyers representing them.

“The requirement of fair hearing by the Constitution has been observed to the letter in this case. We were last in court on March 24. Between then and now, if the 2nd defendant, which is an entity owned by the 1st defendant (Metuh), had wished to disengage its lawyer, it has enough time to have done that.”

He urged the court to refuse the application for adjournment, a request the judge, in his ruling upheld and refused to adjourn on the strength of Onwugbufor’s application.

Following the judge’s last ruling, rejecting his plea for adjournment, Onwugbufor refused to sit down, insisting the judge must hear his last submission. He was still standing when the judge, who ordered Metuh and his company to open their defence by calling their witnesses, later adjourned to Monday, April 11 (for the defence to open its case).

Although the case involving former Chief of Defence staff, Alex Badeh, was later called, trial could not go on because of time constraint. The judge adjourned the case to April 12.

THE judge handling the case involving the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh yesterday said Metuh raised sundry accusations against him and asked him to withdraw from the case.

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, said Metuh’s  lawyer  Emeka Etiaba (SAN) wrote to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, asking him to transfer the case to another judge.

But Justice Abang said he would not be intimidated, adding that by virtue of the National Judicial Council’s (NJC’s) circular, he would continue with the case until the chief judge takes a decision on Metuh’s petition.

Metuh, in the March 11 letter, claimed to have been Justice Abang’s classmate at the law school and that they met a few weeks before the trial.

The PDP spokesman, who is on trial with Destra Investment Limited, his firm, on a seven-count of money laundering, accused the judge of bias and giving him no access to records, with the intention of denying him right to appeal.

The judge spoke yesterday while ruling on an application by Metuh’s lawyer, Ifedayo Adedipe  (SAN), for adjournment, on the grounds that the lead defence lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), was unavailable.

Justice Abang said: “On  March 16, 2016, at 4 pm, the  chief judge forwarded a copy of the letter by Emeka Etiaba (SAN), praying him to transfer this case to another judge, eight witnesses having been called and the no-case application of the defendant dismissed for lack of merit.

 “I want to say that I have a circular by my employer, the National Judicial Council (NJC), to the effect that where there is a petition in a matter seeking the transfer of the case to another judge, the judge handling the case shall continue to preside over the matter until a decision is taken by the authority to which the petition was addressed.

“On the account of this circular, I shall continue to preside over this matter until the chief judge takes a decision on Mr. Etiaba’s petition,” Justice Abang said.

The judge expressed surprise that Etiaba failed to give the prosecution a copy of his letter, as required under Rule 30 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners.

He said having refused to serve the prosecution with a copy, he Etiaba violated the rules of professional conduct for lawyers.

Justice Abang noted that by not serving the prosecution, Etiaba denied the prosecution the opportunity to react to issues raised in the letter.

“Mr. Etiaba complained in the letter that the record of proceedings was not made available to him. The record of proceedings of about 212 pages have been served on the defence team since two days ago. This is not the only case the court is handling. This court is a busy court.

“And again, Etiaba said the accused is my classmate. I don’t know the accused as my classmate. It is for him to prove that he was my classmate. Assuming the accused was my classmate; that will not change the facts of the case and the law.

“I do not take arbitrary decisions. Whatever decision I take here is in line with the law and my conscience. I fear no evil. I am guided by my conscience, without fear or favour,” the judge said.

Going through the history of the case, the judge noted that most adjournments were at the instance of the defence.

Metuh’s legal team, comprising three senior advocates, including Ikpeazu, Adedipe and Etiaba, developed cold feet when,  after the judge ruled on March 9 dismissing the defendants’ no-case submission for lack of merit, became reluctant to open its defence.

Metuh made a no-case submission after prosecution completed its case after calling eight witnesses, who the defence team cross-examined. Rather than lead evidence in his defence, Metuh elected to make a no-case submission, which the court dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution raised several issues to which Metuh must respond to.

After the judge refused his no-case submission on March 9, Metuh was asked to open his defence. He sought time to enable him prepare his witnesses, prompting the judge to adjourn to yesterday.

Rather than open his defence yesterday, Adedipe, who led the defence team, told the court that the lead lawyer, Ikpeazu, who prepared the defence witnesses, was not available. He sought an adjournment, undertaking to conduct defence in the event that Ikpeazu was away, at the next date.

Prosecution lawyer  Sylvanus Tahir reluctantly agreed following Adedipe’s promise to conduct the defence on the next date even if Ikpeazu was absent.

Justice Abang upheld Adedipe’s application and adjourned to March 23.

Metuh’s letter reads: “It is the brief of the defendants that the 1st defendant (Chief Olisa Metuh) was called to the Bar with Justice O. E. Abang, the judge in the above charge, in 1988, and after their call, they both practised in Lagos for years before he (Chief Metuh) relocated to Abuja, where he has lived and Justice Abang, on his part, took to the Bench.

“The 1st defendant further informed us that the last time he met with Justice Abang was sometime late last year at Meridian Hotel in Akwa Ibom, where they had time to talk on many issues. Chief Metuh informed us that he was baffled at Abang’s views and when eventually the charge against him was assigned to his court this January (a few weeks later), he got worried because he feared that he may not get justice in his court.

“The defendants believe that having been a part of the trial in this case and having noticed the disposition of his lordship, they ask themselves this pertinent question: Do we believe that Justice Abang will do justice in this case? They went ahead to resolve the question in the negative, hence a need for this urgent and intervening letter.

“The defendants state that they had resisted causing this letter to be written, but have come to the inevitable conclusion that a judge, who denied them the inalienable right of appeal by withholding record of proceedings among others, will care less about whether they obtain justice in the same case.

 “May we appeal to my lordship, in the interest of justice, to cause the transfer of this case to be made to any other judge in the interest of justice.”

Spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, will be re-arraigned today before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on an amended charge by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

 Metuh was in January this year arraigned on a two-count of destroying a portion of the statement he wrote before the EFCC while being interviewed in relation to allegation that he received N400 million from the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), for which he has been arraigned with his company, Destra Investment Limited, at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Yesterday, while at the Federal High Court in relation to his trial, the EFCC served Metuh an amended version of the charge before the FCT High Court, containing additional count of “obstruction of officers of EFCC in the performance of their duties.”

Metuh, by his alleged act, is said to have contravened the Section 38(2) of the EFCC Establishment Act.

An EFCC official said Metuh would be re-arraigned today on the amended charge before Justice Ishaq Bello of the High Court of the FCT.

Also yesterday, Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, struck out the fundamental rights’ enforcement application he filed, challenging his detention by the EFCC.

Justice Abang struck out the suit owing to Metuh’s failure to attend proceedings yesterday. The judge awarded N80,000 against Metuh in favour of four of the respondents in the case.

 Justice Abang also, yesterday, fixed March 9 for his decision in his no-case submission at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

 Metuh’s lawyer Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), while adopting his client’s written argument in respect of his no-case submission, urged the court to hold that the prosecution failed to make out a case against his client.

He argued that despite the evidence led by the prosecution through its witnesses, it failed to establish his guilt in the case brought against him.

 Prosecution lawyer Sylvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss Metuh’s no-case submission and direct him and his company to enter their defence.

“We have placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence before this court to warrant the court calling on the defence to conduct their defence. With the overwhelming evidence before the court, it does not lie with the defence to say it has no case to answer,” Tahir said.

 After listening to parties adopt their written submissions, Justice Abang adjourned to March 9 for either ruling or judgment.

 The judge said should he uphold Metuh’s no-case submission, he would discharge and acquit the defendants.

 Justice Abang said the defence would be required to open its defence should the no-case submission fails.

Metuh, in his no-case submission, accused the prosecution of withholding evidence by not calling Jonathan. He contended that the former President, to whom the presentation, and for who the payment was made, is therefore, a material and indispensable person in order for a prima facie case to be established against him.

 He argued that because a prosecution witness -Yomi Badejo-Okusanya, who is the managing director of a Lagos-based public relations firm, CMC Connect, testified that he made a presentation before Jonathan before his (Badejo-Okusanya’s) company was paid from the N400 million Metuh allegedly diverted, Jonathan was a vital prosecution witness.

 “Dr.Jonathan, to whom the presentation was made for which the payment was made, is a material and indispensible person in order for a prima facie case to be present.

 “Where the prosecution failed to call such a vital witness, a strong presumption will arise that the evidence, if called, would be unfavourable to the prosecution.

Metuh argued that the EFCC had not established a prima facie case against him in line with sections 302 and 357 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 since the prosecution had not made such case against him and his company.

“In any case, the “mens rea’ of the defendants to the effect that former NSA, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd) committed a criminal offence cannot be inferred, but must be established by a competent evidence which must come from the prosecution,” he said.

It is his case that no evidence was laid out by the prosecution that N400 million was the proceed of alleged criminal conduct committed by Dasuki, adding that if anything, the documents presented by the prosecution in the case only point out that the former NSA complied with due process and the contrary has not been pronounced by the court of competent jurisdiction.

“In this case, by the evidence of PW3, who works in the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), the NSA is answerable to the then President Goodluck Jonathan only,” he said.

Metuh said Section 15 (2) (d) of the ACJA required proof that the money must be proceeds of an unlawful act.

“In this case, it has not been established that the defendants knew that the ONSA engaged in any unlawful act, adding that an unlawful act must be an act which is not authorised or approved and which has been found to be illegal.

“There was no evidence that the defendants were involved in any forged documents to create a contract where none was in fact, in existence. “Pw8, the investigator was emphatic that he found no relationship between the defendants and Col. Sambo Dasuki,” Metu said.

The EFCC, in its response to Metuh’s no-case submission, argued that it conveniently made out a case against Metuh for which the court should direct him to enter defence.

It argued that Jonathan was not a necessary prosecution witness as it effectively established its case with the number of witnesses it called.  EFCC urged the court to dismiss Metuh’s no-case argument.

 “In response to the above argument, we submit that nothing can be farther from the truth. The defence cannot pick and chose witnesses for the prosecution and as pointed out by the defence, the prosecution is not required to call witnesses or a particular witness in proof of its case.

 “What the law requires the prosecution to do is to call material witness (es) in proof of its case,” it said.

The EFCC, in its response by prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus  Tahir, urged the court to direct the defendants to give explain  “the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution.”

  It argued that a “prima facie case of money laundering has been established” against the defendants.

The prosecution said it led sufficient evidence to prove its case against the defendants.

Citing the issue relating to the defendants making cash transactions of $2 million far above the statutory threshold of N5 million for individuals and N10 million for corporate bodies, the anti-graft agencies alleged that the accused violated Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.

 “The points to note in this transaction are the following: The origin of the initial $2 million, which belong to either of the defendants, remained undocumented (which goes against the essence of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act i.e, financing terrorism and disguising, concealment or laundering the origin of illicit funds.”

 “The above points go to show the length to which the defendants went to conceal the origin of the $2 million. The count, however, hinges on carrying out the transaction above the treshhold of N5 million for an individual or N10 million or its equivalent by a corporate body,” it said.

 On the allegation that Metuh transferred N21,776,000 to a former Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the PDP, Chief Anthony Anenih, the EFCC argued that “to prove this count, the prosecution led evidence through PW8 and through Exhibit D1 attachments thereto to show that the defendants did transfer N21,776,000 to Chief Anthony Anenih, a notable PDP chief.

 “This raises a prima facie case as alleged in the charge, which the defendants must by evidence in their rebuttal. In the absence of which the court has no choice but to act on the available evidence led by the prosecution,” it said.

 Trial continues tomorrow.