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.
