The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Metuh’s trial

  • Lawyers seek court’s permission to withdraw from Metuh’s trial

    Lawyers to Olisa Metuh, former spokesman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) have applied to a Federal High Court in Abuja for permission to withdraw their participation in Metuh’s ongoing trial for alleged fraud and money laundering related offences.

    The lawyers numbering 12, including two Senior Advocates of Nigeria – Onyechi Ikpeazu and Emeka Etiaba – gave reasons, in a fresh motion, why they want to be excused from the case.

    The lawyers, who urged the court to allow them to withdraw from the trial in the interest of justice, claimed to be under “immense pressure” over their continued appearance in the case, and that there have been threats to their lives.

    They said, in the motion: “The counsel representing the 1st defendant have been going through immense pressure, with respect to their appearance in this case, including severe threat to their lives and will be unable to contain the 1st defendant.”

    In the motion, predicated on Section 349(7) and (8) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, the lawyers, who were absent when the case earlier came up on Monday, said they will be occupied with election petition cases and would be unable to attend the day-to-day trial ordered by the court.

    Ikpeazu, in a supporting affidavit, said he received crank calls by persons that threatened to kill him because of the way he “mishandled” the case.

    Ikpeazu added: “I have received numerous threats to my life from diverse sources through telephone calls with disguised numbers, giving an ultimatum and threatening to kill me based on the manner they claimed I had been mishandling the case.”

    He added that Etiaba also informed him that he had received similar threats and thus will no longer proceed with the representation of the 1st defendant.”

    He said: “in the circumstance, it is impossible to avail the 1st defendant the legal representation he deserves in this case.”

    The lawyers urged the court grant the motion to enable them to withdraw from case in view of the day-to-day hearing ordered by the court, a schedule, which they said, was difficult for them to meet, “having regard to diaries of their respective offices.”

    Proceedings in the case was stalled on Monday in view of the lawyers’ absence, following which the court adjourned to Tuesday.

    On Tuesday, Justice Okon Abang asked Metuh (who sat in the dock) how he intended to proceed in view of the motion by his lawyers, who also stayed away from court.

    Metuh said he met with his lawyers on Monday evening and that they said they were traumatized by experiences they have had in the hands of the Federal Government since the trial started.

    The ex-spokesman for the PDP prayed the court to grant an adjournment to enable his lawyers argue their fresh motion in which they prayed to be excused from the case.

    Justice Abang subsequently adjourned till March 13.

    Metuh is being tried with his firm, Destra Investment Ltd, for allegedly receiving N400million from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) preparatory to the 2015 presidential election, without executing any contract.

    Metuh is also accused of engaging in cash transaction to the tune of $2million without going through any financial institution.

    The prosecution has since closed its case after calling about eight witnesses, with Metuh currently testifying as a defence witness.

  • Court to continue ex-PDP spokesman Metuh’s trial in his absence

    A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has ruled to continue the trial of ex-spokesman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Olisa Metuh in his absence following his alleged refusal to further attend proceedings.

    The court also ordered that the General Manager of a private television station, Channels Television, Abuja and the anchor of its daily Sunrise programme, Mrs. Maope Ogun-Yusuf, should attend the court tomorrow at 9am to show cause why they should not be compelled to produce the master tape of the recording of the programme aired on Tuesday.

    Justice Okon Abang made the orders yesterday while ruling on applications by Metuh’s lawyer, Emeka Etiaba (SAN) and prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir.

    Etiaba had, at the resumed proceedings in the case on Tuesday, told the court that although his witnesses were in court and ready to testify, but that his client was absent in view of the incident of the previous day.

    He said his client was on admission at the intensive care unit of the National Hospital, Abuja, where he was allegedly rushed to after he fell in court on May 21.

    He consequently applied for adjournment until when his client would be fit to attend court.

    The application, though supported by the second defence lawyer, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), was rejected by Tahir, who insisted that trial should go on in Metuh’s absence on the grounds that his lawyer did not provide any evidence to support his claim.

    Tahir equally complained about some alleged prejudicial statements purportedly made by a lawyer in the defence team, identified as Ben Chuck Nwosu, in relation to the pending trial, while he appeared on Tuesday in Channels TV’s Sunrise Daily.

    He applied that the station’s managing director and the programme’s anchor be summoned to produce the recording of the programme unedited.

    Metuh, who is presently conducting his defence and was to call his 11th witness at the resumption of proceedings on May 21, fell in court while making his way into the dock, in defiance of the judge’s earlier directive that he should remain on his seat.

    Metuh and his company, Destra Investment are being tried by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on charges bordering on money laundering offences.

    Justice Abang, in electing to proceed with the trial in Metuh’s absence, agreed with Tahir that Etiaba failed to properly explain his client’s absence and provide sufficient evidence in that regard.

    The judge, who recalled incidents leading to how Metuh fell in court, held that his (Metuh’s) action that led to his fall and his subsequent absent from court amounted to willful disobedience of the court.

    He adjourned to today, at 1pm for the continuation of trial in the substantive case.

  • Metuh: Court summons Jonathan, Dasuki

    Metuh: Court summons Jonathan, Dasuki

    A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has insisted that former President Goodluck Jonathan and ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Mohammed Dasuki must appear today to testify for the defence in the ongoing trial of ex-spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    Justice Okon Abang gave the directive yesterday despite the pending motion by Dasuki, challenging the witness summons issued on him and the uncertainty over whether or not Jonathan has been served with the subpoena issued by the court on Monday.

    At the resumption of proceedings in the trial of Metuh and his company, Destra Investment yesterday, Justice Abang took argument from lawyer to Dasuki, Ahmed Raji (SAN) and other lawyers in the case on the motion by ex-NSA.

    Arguing his client’s motion, Raji contended that there was no way Dasuki would testify in Metuh’s trial without implicating himself because the issues in the case and the three pending charges against him (Dasuki) were interlinked.

    Raji prayed the court to set aside the subpoena issued on Dasuki or suspend the execution of the court summon until he (Dasuki) was released from prison.

    He argued that his client’s long detention by the Department of State Service (DSS) since December 2015 has deprived Dasuki of ability to meaningful participate in Metuh’s trial

    Raji said the DSS continued to detain Dasuki despite being granted bail by three separate municipal courts and also an order to be released by ECOWAS Court.

    He said with his client’s continued detention, the ex-NSA had no access records that could enable him to give meaningful  evidence.

    Raji argued that from the nature of the charges instituted against Metuh, Dasuki could be said to be an alleged co-accomplice.

    He said the ex-NSA would “not be able to give evidence in the case without incriminating himself.”

    Raji contended that Dasuki, as an alleged accomplice, was a competent witness, but not a compellable witness.

    He stated that compelling Dasuki to give evidence would violate Section 36(2) of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right of a suspect to remain silent when arrested or detained.

    Raji said Dasuki was not served personally with the subpoena, as such, the service of the subpoena through the Director-General of DSS was invalid.

    Prosecuting lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir and lawyers representing Metuh and Destra, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) opposed Dasuki’s motion.

    They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

    Tahir, Ikpeazu and Onwugbufor argued that granting the application by the court would amount to a violation of Section 287(2) of the Constitution, which they said prohibited a lower court from reviewing or varying the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which on September 29, ordered Justice Abang to sign the subpoena.

    On Raji’s argument that his client, being an alleged accomplice could implicate himself, Tahir argued that such contention was without basis.

    He said, “The applicant said he is an accomplice and his evidence will be self-incriminating

    “That argument is contrary to section 198 (1) of the Evidence Act.”

    On points of law, Raji said by virtue of the provisions of section 36 (11) of the Constitution “nobody standing trial shall be compelled to give evidence”.

    He added none of the respondents had challenged “the fact that we have no access to records and we are not in right mental state to give evidence in this case”.

    Justice Abang has reserved ruling on Dasuki’s motion till today.

    He  said: “The outcome of the ruling will determine which step to take about the first subpoena(issued on Dasuki), but the orders compelling His Excellency, former President Goodluck Jonathan, and Col. Sambo Dasuki, to appear in court on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at the instance of the first defendant (Metuh) still stand.”

    Justice Abang had issued separate subpoenas on Jonathan and Dasuki upon applications by Metuh, who had requested the two men to testify in his defence in his ongoing trial.

    The judge confirmed that the subpoena on Jonathan was issue upon the receipt of Metuh’s application for the summon to be served on the ex-President at about 3.59p.m. on Monday.

    Justice Abang said: “In line with section 241(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and having regard to the subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal in the appeal, CA/A/159C/2017, between Olisa Metuh and Federal Republic of Nigeria  dated September 29, 2017 to the effect that it will be tantamount to violating the right of the first defendant (Metuh) to fair hearing not to sign the subpoena, I have no option  other than to sign a subpoena to compel former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear in court on September 25, 2017 (Wednesday)to give evidence at the instance of the first defendant,” he said.

    When asked if Jonathan has been served with the subpoena, a registrar of the court said the bailiff of the court was yet to serve the subpoena on Jonathan as at yesterday morning.

    Metuh and Destra are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on a seven-count charge of money laundering involving alleged cash transaction of $2 million and fraudulent receipt of  million meant for procurement of arms from the Office of the NSA.

    The EFCC alleged in the charges that Metuh and his firm used the N400 million for PDP’s campaign activities during the 2015 presidential election.

  • Metuh’s trial: Judge admits documents of payments for publicity

    Metuh’s trial: Judge admits documents of payments for publicity

    Richard Ihediwa, a defence witness in the ongoing trial of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) former National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, yesterday at a Federal High Court sitting, tendered documents showing payments for advertorials in media outlets under the instruction of accused.

    Metuh, who is facing trial with his firm, Destra Investment Ltd, is accused of unlawfully receiving N400 million from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) prior to the 2015 presidential election.

    Ihediwa tendered the documents, comprising a breakdown of payment of the sum of N31million to media outlets for advertorials in the name of PDP.

    In a bench ruling, the trial judge, Justice Okong Abang, held that since the documents were relevant to the case, they are admissible.

    He ruled: “Being a legal document of account, it does not matter whether the witness is a maker or not, especially as he has knowledge of the inflow of account.”

    Quoting from the evidence-in-chief of the witness, the judge noted when the witness said his responsibility was to handle and place advertorials, including the payments for such advertorials.

    “I also remember when the witness said N31.5 million was paid into his account by the 1st defendant, which he in turn disbursed to various media outlets covering them,” the judge added.

  • Jonathan not a necessary party in Metuh’s trial, says EFCC

    Jonathan not a necessary party in Metuh’s trial, says EFCC

    THE Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has said it can effectively prosecute the trial of Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) spokesman Olisa Metuh without involving former President Goodluck Jonathan in the case.

    EFCC’s position was in reaction to Metuh’s argument that since Jonathan was allegedly involved in the process leading to the payment of funds for his presidential campaign from the N400 million he (Metuh) was said to have received from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), he (Jonathan) was a necessary witness in the case.

    Metuh and his company Destra Investment Limited are being tried before the Federal High Court, Abuja for allegedly receiving N400 million from the office of the NSA for security services, which he allegedly diverted to fund his party’s activities.

    They are also accused of flouting the money laundering Act by making $2 million suspicious investment.

    At the conclusion of the prosecution’s witness, Metuh opted to make a no-case submission, which he filed in court last week. He argued among others, that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case against him by not inviting Jonathan as its witness.

    It is Metuh’s contention that because a prosecution witness – Yomi Badejo-Okusanya, who is the managing director of a Lagos-based public relations firm, CMC Connect, had testified that he made a presentation before Jonathan before his (Badejo-Okusanya’s) company was paid from the N400 millionMetuh is accused of diverting, Jonathan was a vital prosecution witness.

    Metuh, represented by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), 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, was therefore, a material and indispensable person in order for a prima facie case to be established against him.

    The EFCC, in its response to Metuh’s no-case submission, argued that it has 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 has effectively established its case with the number of witnesses it had called.

    EFCC urged the court to dismiss Metuh’s no-case argument.

    “In response to the above argument my lord, we submit that nothing can be farther from the truth. The defence cannot pick and chose witnesses for the prosecution and as rightly pointed out by the defence, the prosecution is not required to call a host of 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 explanation to “the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution”.

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

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

    It cited the issue relating to the defendants making cash transactions of $2 million, which is 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 which are vital: The origin of the initial sum of $2 million, which belong to either of the defendants remained undocumented (which goes against the very essence of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act i.e, financing terrorism and disguising, concealment or laundering the origin of illicit funds.”

    “All the above points my lord, goes 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 threshold of N5 million for an individual or N10 million or its equivalence by a corporate body,” it said.

    On the allegation that Metuh transferred N21,776,000 to a former Chairman of the Board of Trustee 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 the sum of 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.

    Parties are to adopt their written arguments in the no-case submission on Thursday.