The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Olisa Metuh

  • Alleged assault: Court dismisses N500m suit against Metuh, wife

    Alleged assault: Court dismisses N500m suit against Metuh, wife

    • Says plaintiffs failed to prove their case
    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama, Abuja has dismissed a N500 million suit brought against former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman, Olisa Metuh, his wife, Kanayo and one of their security aides, Oche Gambo.
    In a judgment on Thursday, Justice Folashade Ojo held that the plaintiffs – the management of an Abuja-based private school – British Nigerian Academy (formerly attended by Metuh’s son, Derrick) and two of its staff – Kola Pele (Vice Principal) and Hamzat Maftau (a teacher) failed to prove their case against the defendants.
    The plaintiffs had sued Metuh and others for allegedly forcing themselves into the school premises on February 19, 2011 and assaulting two of the school’s staff, who confiscated Derrick’s mobile telephone.
    The plaintiffs, in the suit, marked: FCT/HC/CV/4248/2011 stated that Metuh’s wife and son visited her (Metuh’s wife’s) nephew, Kamsi Aghaji (a student) when an official of the school, Miss. Amauche Igbe, who saw Derrick giving his phone to some students in the boys’ hostel, in violation of school rules (that no phone allowed in hostels) seized the phone.
    They further stated that, on being unable to secure the release of her son’s phone, Kanayo invited her husband, who alleged stormed the school premises with armed policemen and allegedly assaulted Pele and Maftau for refusing to release his(Metuh’s) son’s phone.
    The plaintiffs prayed the court to declare among others, that the actions of the defendants on February 19, 2011, at the school amounted to trespass and unlawful entry to the plaintiffs’ school premises.
    The urged the court to award N500million damages against the defendants (N150m in special and general damages for assault, harassment, intimidation, mental pain, severe humiliation and injury to the person and personal integrity of Pele and Maftau; N100m for exemplary damages for trespass and unlawful entry into the school premises and N250m aggravated damages for grave injury caused to the commercial reputation and protective integrity of the school.
    After analysing all evidence led by parties at trial, Justice Ojo resolved the three issues identified for determination against the plaintiffs. She noted that the failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case.
    On whether the presence of the defendants in the school premises on the day of the incident was unlawful, as claimed by the plaintiffs, the judge noted that the plaintiffs, even though pleaded the school’s newsletter (which they claimed contained notices of students’ relatives’ visiting days) they neglected to tender it in evidence.
    Justice Ojo held that the only inference one could draw from plaintiff’s failure to tender the newsletter, which was necessary to prove their claim of trespass, was because its content did not support their case.
    The judge held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the defendants were in the school premises, on the day of the incident, unlawfully as the plaintiffs failed to prove that claim.
    In holding that the plaintiffs failed to also establish their claim of assault, the judge noted that even where it was the plaintiff’s case that the incident of assault occurred in the presence of some school staff, students and their parents, the plaintiffs failed to call some of those, who they claimed witnessed the incident.
    “It was a staff of the 1st plaintiff (Miss. Amauche Igbe) that seized the phone from the 2nd defendant and handed over same to the 2nd plaintiff. The saidMiss. Amauche Igbe did not testify in this case and no reason was given for her failure to testify.
    “In the face of the denial of the plaintiffs’ case by the defendants, I am of the view that the failure of the plaintiffs to call any other witnesses is fatal to their case. The plaintiffs’ evidence is that other people were present when the assault took place. The people include the staff and students of the school.
    “In the present circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have failed to prove, by the preponderance of evidence that they were assaulted by the defendants on the day in question,” the judge said.
    She added that having held that the plaintiffs could not establish trespass against the defendants their prayers for injunctions and damages cannot be granted.
    “The alleged misconduct of the defendants, which allegedly brought pains, harassment, etc to the plaintiffs has not been proved. In conclusion, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case against the defendants and same is dismissed in its entirety,” Justice Ojo said.

  • Alleged assault: Court dismisses N500m suit against Metuh, wife

    …Says plaintiffs failed to prove their case

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

    In a judgment on Thursday, Justice Folashade Ojo held that the plaintiffs – the management of an Abuja-based private school – British Nigerian Academy (formerly attended by Metuh’s son, Derrick) and two of its staff – Kola Pele (Vice Principal) and Hamzat Maftau (a teacher) failed to prove their case against the defendants.

    The plaintiffs had sued Metuh and others for allegedly forcing themselves into the school premises on February 19, 2011 and assaulting two of the school’s staff, who confiscated Derrick’s mobile telephone.

    The plaintiffs, in the suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/4248/2011 stated that Metuh’s wife and son visited her (Metuh’s wife’s) nephew, Kamsi Aghaji (a student), when an official of the school, Miss. Amauche Igbe, who saw Derrick giving his phone to some students in the boys’ hostel, in violation of school rules (that no phone allowed in hostels) seized the phone.

    They further stated that, on being unable to secure the release of her son’s phone, Kanayo invited her husband, who alleged stormed the school premises with armed policemen and allegedly assaulted Pele and Maftau for refusing to release his (Metuh’s) son’s phone.

    The plaintiffs prayed the court to declare among others, that the actions of the defendants on February 19, 2011 at the school amounted to trespass and unlawful entry to the plaintiffs’ school premises.

    They urged the court to award N500 million damages against the defendants (N150m in special and general damages for assault, harassment, intimidation, mental pain, severe humiliation and injury to the person and personal integrity of Pele and Maftau; N100m for exemplary damages for trespass and unlawful entry into the school premises and N250m aggravated damages for grave injury caused to the commercial reputation and protective integrity of the school.

    After analysing all evidence led by parties at trial, Justice Ojo resolved the three issues identified for determination against the plaintiffs. She noted that the failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case.

    On whether the presence of the defendants in the school premises on the day of the incident was unlawful, as claimed by the plaintiffs, the judge noted that the plaintiffs, even though pleaded the school’s newsletter (which they claimed contained notices of students’ relatives’ visiting days) they neglected to tender it in evidence.

    Justice Ojo held that the only inference one could draw from plaintiff’s failure to tender the newsletter, which was necessary to prove their claim of trespass, was because its content did not support their case.

    The judge held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the defendants were in the school premises, on the day of the incident, unlawfully as the plaintiffs failed to prove that claim.

    In holding that the plaintiffs failed to also establish their claim of assault, the judge noted that even where it was the plaintiffs case that the incident of assault occurred in the presence of some school staff, students and their parents, the plaintiffs failed to call some of those, who they claimed witnessed the incident.

    “It was a staff of the 1st plaintiff (Miss. Amauche Igbe) that seized the phone from the 2nd defendant and handed over same to the 2nd plaintiff. The said Miss. Amauche Igbe did not testify in this case and no reason was given for her failure to testify.

    “In the face of the denial of the plaintiffs’ case by the defendants, I am of the view that the failure of the plaintiffs to call any other witnesses is very fatal to their case. The plaintiffs’ evidence is that other people were present when the assault took place. The people include the staff and students of the school.

    “In the present circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have failed to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that they were assaulted by the defendants on the day in question,” the judge said.

    She added that having held that the plaintiffs could not establish trespass against the defendants their prayers for injunctions and damages cannot be granted.

    “The alleged misconduct of the defendants, which allegedly brought pains, harassment, etc to the plaintiffs has not been proved. In conclusion, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case against the defendants and same is dismissed in its entirety,” Justice Ojo said.

  • Count me out of attempt to stop PDP convention – Metuh

    Count me out of attempt to stop PDP convention – Metuh

    The immediate past National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Olisa Metuh, has dissociated himself from a suit seeking to stop the party’s national convention billed to hold in Port Harcourt on August 17.

    Metuh’s name had featured as one of the plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed by the camp of the party’s ousted National Chairman, Alhaji Ali Modu Sheriff and others at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday.

    In a statement issued by his Media Assistant, Mr. Richard Ihediwa on Thursday, Metuh said he was not a party to the suit neither did he instruct anyone to fill same on his behalf.

    The statement said, “Chief Metuh wishes to inform the general public that he is not part of the suit seeking to stop the convention and he never instructed anyone to file any such suit on his behalf.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, Chief Metuh has taken the pains to consult those that went to court and has been reliably informed that his name was listed in error and which they have promised to rectify accordingly.

    “It is pertinent to mention that Chief Metuh has not attended any political meeting and/or programme since his chair accident at a function at the party’s National Secretariat in April wherein he aggravated his spinal cord ailment.

    “Our appeal therefore is that Chief Metuh at this time should be left out of intra-party controversies. His only preoccupation now remains matters concerning his health and the extant court trial.”

    Metuh, who is currently on bail, is facing trial over N400 million slush arms purchase cash which he allegedly collected from the embattled former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd).

     

  • Sheriff, Oladipo, Metuh move to stop PDP convention

    Sheriff, Oladipo, Metuh move to stop PDP convention

    … Court to hear suit Thursday

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, will on Thursday hear a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking among others, an order stopping the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) slated for August 17.

    The judge on Tuesday granted the applicants, who are mostly members of the Ali Modu-Sheriff faction of the party, leave to have the application heard during the court’s long vacation.

    The applicants are – Sheriff, Prof. Wale Oladapo (National Secretary), Dennis Alonge-Niyi (Deputy National Youth Leader), Alhaji Bashir Maidugu (Deputy National Legal Adviser), Mrs. Hanatu Ulam (Deputy National Women Leader), Alhaji Lawa Dutsima Anchi (Deputy National Auditor), Chief Okey Nnadozie (Deputy National Organising Secretary) and Chief Olisa Metuh (National Publicity Secretary).

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the PDP are the respondents.

    The applicants said the interlocutory injunction is intended to preserve the res pending the determination of a substantive suit they filed on July 4 in which they argued among others, that by virtue of the PDP Constitution, their tenure expires in 2018.

    The nine plaintiffs said they filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/464/2016 for themselves and on behalf of the Executive Committee/National Working Committee of the PDP.

    The Sheriff faction filed the interlocutory application on July 20 shortly after the Ahmed Makarfi-led faction announced August 17 for the party’s national convention.

    They specifically want the court to stop the party from going ahead with the planned national convention pending the determination of their substantive suit.

     

  • Metuh admitted in LUTH for acute waist pain – lawyer

    Metuh admitted in LUTH for acute waist pain – lawyer

    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 Friday 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.

    The letter from LUTH, signed for Consultant Neurosurgeon by Dr. Olufemi Bankole, said Metuh was under observation and management by the hospital and would need to be confined to bed rest for some time. The letter was silent on the duration of Metuh’s admission.

    Metuh last attended proceedings on May 23 when his 4th witness, Anthony Okeke commenced giving evidence. He was to continue the following day, only for Etiaba to inform the court that his client was on admission at the National Hospital and was on bed rest.

    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.

    Friday, Metuh was expected to resume his defence, but his lawyer to 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.

    “The last time we were here, this court was informed of the admission of the 1st defendant (Metuh) at the National Hospital, Abuja. I urged the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the 1st defendant is deemed to be on admission at the National Hospital.

    “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 court has no idea when the 1st defendant was discharged by the National Hospital. One would have expected that the 1st defendant would have availed himself the opportunity of attending to his health between the last time we were here and now. The same issue of health came up when last we were here.

    “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, who he said claimed that their facility, being the best in the country could no reverse itself by referring Metuh to inferior Nigerian hospitals having earlier referred him for treatment abroad.

    “This trial will come and go, and God willing, we will all be alive to continue to work from the Bar. It is not a matter of life and death.

    “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 commence 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.

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

    “This application is brought in good faith. What we see in Nigeria today, demonstrates the fact that human health is unpredictable and life itself has also become unpredictable. The first defendant is in dare need of medical help. That is why he is not in court this morning,” Etiaba said.

    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 works. Look at your brother judge ( a judge of the court who died on Wednesday), who was here yesterday, today he is no more. Such is the unpredictability of life.”

    Ruling, 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.

    “It was on the strength of the letter from the National Hospital, dated May 24, that this court adjourned proceedings on that day. The hospital ought to furnish the court with reasons why the 1st defendant left for another hospital.

    “The management staff of the National Hospital is not above the law. The management of the hospital cannot treat the court with levity and disdain. This court is not aware that the National Hospital is the first hospital in Nigeria,” the judge said.

    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.

  • Metuh agonistes

    The Metuhs, family of the embattled Olisa Metuh, on trial over an alleged election-time scam, have been agonising.

    But what is their point, exactly?

    In a family release, half-contrite and half-mischief, signed by Chief Gilbert Metuh, the family let out a jeremiad about how their son, Olisa, offered to “refund” N400 million “from the amount he allegedly collected for the reelection of former President Goodluck Jonathan” (to quote The Nation’s reportage on May 27).  He was allegedly spurned.

    But what of the rest of the cash, and what criteria informed a refund of N400 million?

    Then the lamentation of bringing Olisa to trial, as if any exemption, on that score, is his constitutional right: “Out of the over 300 names listed as having received money from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), all those who offered to refund money were not arraigned in court.  Our son is the only one whose offer was rejected and has been arraigned in court; and his case given accelerated hearing.”

    Chineke!  Are the Metuhs against accelerated hearings, in which their son would quickly prove his innocence and be set free?

    But using simple robberies as examples: if the Metuhs have their homestead robbed and the suspect is caught and put on trial.  But before acquittal or conviction, he suddenly offers to return the loot; and, by his offer, mounts a high moral horse, to automatically abort his trial.  How would the Metuhs feel?

    Then, the ultimate blackmail: Metuh’s health is failing.  He must travel for treatment or else …!

    Sounds all too familiar, doesn’t it?  Perhaps when the case started, and Olisa was all bluff and bluster, even allegedly shredding and chewing up evidence, medical tourism was his ultimate joker, being an African Big Man of Nigerian extraction?

    Hardball wishes Olisa Metuh robust health to withstand accelerated trial and secure acquittal, just as the prosecution wishes him the same to secure conviction. It’s all about the court process.

    So, anything outside fairly and vigorously completing this judicial process is sheer mischief.  The family would therefore do well to address this inevitability, or else they lament in vain.

    Besides, whether a court says yes or no to a request depends on its discretion, based on facts before it.  Olisa Metuh, a lawyer, of all persons, should know that!

    But one final query: what is the Metuhs’ locus in this particular case?

    Now, don’t misunderstand Hardball: any family would be anxious for its own in times of peril. But the cheap our-son-is-being-persecuted line is utterly disgusting.

    When the alleged racketeering that landed him in court was going on, did he secure the family’s mandate?  If he did, maybe they are all jointly on trial.

    But if he acted solo, why this vicarious intrusion into the trial, painting the court black, agonizing about alleged hostility?

    If Olisa Metuh was indeed involved in a scam as being alleged, what he had done was criminally short-changing fellow citizens, who have suffered irreparable losses by that corruption.  Are the rest of us not entitled to justice, just because the Metuhs would wish their son were some sacred cow?

    Besides, where were the Metuhs when Olisa was boasting and swearing he would return no kobo, and that the business was between himself and former President Jonathan, and no one else?  Eh, was the money Jonathan’s personal money?

    Even as the Metuhs lament, let them be correctly guided.  As Olisa is entitled to justice, so is the rest of us, the robbed and deprived.

  • You can’t travel abroad now, court tells Metuh

    You can’t travel abroad now, court tells Metuh

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja Wednesday 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 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 superior 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 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 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.

    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.

     

  • Alleged money laundry: A/Court says Metuh has case to answer

    Alleged money laundry: A/Court says Metuh has case to answer

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

    The appellate court, in a judgment Wednesday, upheld the March 9 ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to the effect 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 to the 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 a seven-count charge 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 Wednesday, 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 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 declaring the upholding the preliminary objection, the court still proceeding 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 7-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 numbering 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.

    Earlier before the Metuh judgment, the court decided the appeal by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafria (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and two of his associates – David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu,

    A three-man panel, also led by Justice  Aboki, upheld, in a judgment on Wednesday,  the January 29, 2016 ruling of Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, refusing the appellants bail.

    Justice Aboki, who read the lead judgment, held that the trial court was in order in refusing the appellants’ bail application filed on January 14, 2016.

    Justice Tsoho had, in rejecting Kanu and others’ bail application, held among others, that they were charged with serious offences, including treasonable felony that they failed to disprove the prosecution’s claim that they would jump bail.

    In his judgment yesterday, Justice Aboki said, “Contrary to the appellants’ contention, it is my view that there was proper consideration of the proof of evidence by the trial court before the consideration of the appellants’ applications for bail.

    “The trial court’s observation that the 1st applicant’s dual citizenship supports the suspicion of his escaping if granted bail, cannot be faulted.

    “The exercise of its discretion was both judicially and judiciously. More so, there are other reasons, as shown from the record, why the appellants were not granted bail.”

    Justice Aboki faulted the appellants’ argument that the court, in denying bail to the 2nd and 3rd appellants, failed to state any reason.

    “The charges against the appellants are for serious offences and the complainant has satisfied the court why bail should not be granted to them.

    “Therefore, the trial court is not in violation of the rights of the appellants herein to personal liberty or fair hearing as contended by the appellants,” the judge said

    He said, although the court has the power to interfere with the finding of a lower court, where such finding is perverse, such case did no arise in this instance.

    Justice Aboki declared: “On the whole, there is no merit in this appeal. And it is hereby dismissed. The ruling of the trial court, rejecting the appellants bail applications, is hereby upheld,” Justice Aboki said.

    Justices Hassan and Mustapher, who were on the panel, also agreed with the lead judgment.

     

  • Court rejects Metuh’s bid for foreign medical trip

    Court rejects Metuh’s bid for foreign medical trip

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, declared on Wednesday that he lacked the jurisdiction to release the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Spokesman,  Olisa Metuh’s passport to enable him seek medical treatment abroad.

    Details later…

  • Appeal Court delivers judgment in Metuh’s case Wednesday

    Appeal Court delivers judgment in Metuh’s case Wednesday

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja will Wednesday deliver judgments in the appeal by spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    The Nation learnt Tuesday that parties in the case have been issued hearing notices to that effect.

    A three-man panel, head by Justice Abdul Aboki had on May 5 told parties that they would be informed of the date for judgment.

    Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited are appealing the ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice Abang had, in the ruling, refused their no-case submission and ordered them to enter defence in their trial for money laundering and unlawful receipt of funds from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).

    Metuh and his company are being tried on a seven-count charge. 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 rejects in a 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), had while adopting their briefs on May 5, faulted Justice Abang’s reasoning in rejecting their clients’ no-case submissions.

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

    Responding, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit and for being defective.

    Tahir noted that the appeal being an interlocutory one, the appellants were required under the law, to first obtain the leave of the trial court.

    He argued that, having not fulfilled the condition precedent, the appellants could not claim to have a valid appeal before the court.