Insists Metuh defied its directive
To rule on request to invite Channels TV officials over alleged misrepresentation
A Federal High Court in Abuja will decide on Wednesday whether or not to proceed with the trial of former spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh in his absence following report that he was admission in a hospital and could no longer attend proceedings.
The court will also decide whether or not it was necessary to invite the General Manager of a private television station, Channels Television and one of its officials, Mrs. Maupe Ogun-Yusuf to produce in court, the video recordings of the May 22, 2018 edition of the station’s morning programme, Sunrise Daily.
Justice Okon Abang chose today for ruling after listening to the prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir made and argued both applications and the counter-argument by defence lawyers in the proceedings conducted yesterday without Metuh’s presence.
Metuh is being tried before the court on charges of money laundering, along with his company, Destra Investment Limited, through which he allegedly made a case investment of $2million without going through a financial institution.
At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday, Metuh, who fell during Monday’s proceedings and was moved to an hospital for medical attention, was absent. His lawyer, Emeka Etiaba (SAN) who applied to withdraw on Monday, but had his application refused by the trial judge, appeared yesterday and told the court why his client was absent.
Etiaba told the court that Metuh’s absence was informed by his admission at the National Hospital, Abuja, where he was taken to after the Monday incident.
Citing Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Etiaba prayed the court to adjourn the case on the grounds that the section forbids the continuation of a criminal trial in the absence of the defendant.
Etiaba observed that the court’s ambulance was used to convey Metuh to the National Hospital in Abuja on Monday after “a doctor of this court” was satisfied that he needed to be taken to the hospital.
Lawyer to Destra, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) aligned with Etiaba’s application for adjournment. He argued that Section 266 of ACJA was couched in a manner that did not give the court a choice other than to adjourn proceedings in Metuh’s absence.
Onwugbufor also argued that the exceptions in section 266 of ACJA that could warrant conducting the trial in Metuh’s absence had not arisen.
He contended that fair hearing granted the defendant in section 36(6) of the Constitution entailed the mandatory presence of the defendant in court whenever his matter was to be heard.
Responding, Tahir objected to the defence’s application for adjournment. He blamed Metuh for being authoring his fate. He noted that Metuh deliberately disobeyed the judge’s lawful directive to remain on his seat when he fell on Monday.
He said Metuh’s refusal to obey the court’s lawful directive was an act of “wilful disobedience” which he said “amounts to misconduct”.
He added that since Metuh was taken away from the court on Monday, there had been no report brought to court on the status of the defendant’s condition.
“Therefore the defendant cannot be entitled to benefits of section 266 of ACJA,” Tahir said.
Tahir said Metuh’s conduct on Monday was part of the delay tactics which the defence had allegedly employed since the commencement of the case to scuttle and frustrate the trial.
Urging the judge to proceed with the trial, Tahir said Metuh’s absence from court was a violation of the conditions of the bail granted him.
He urged the court to consider the provisions of 266(a) and 352(4) of ACJA and take the decision to proceed with the trial in Metuh’s absence.
Tahir later informed the court that was a lawyer from Metuh’s legal team on Channels TV’s Sunrise Daily on Tuesday and commented on the ongoing trial.
He applied that the court invites Channels TV’s General Manager and the anchor of the Sunrise Daily, Mrs. Maupe Ogun-Yusuf, an application Etiaba described as incompetent, arguing that it was made within an application yet to be decided by the court.
Etiaba contended that since Tahir made his application on the invitation of the Channels TV officials, while responding to his (Etiaba’s) application for adjournment, the request to summon Channel TV’s officials was incompetent.
The defence lawyer equally accused Tahir of concealing the fact that a lawyer with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Johnson Ojogbane, appeared in the case to defend the commission on the programme.
He alleged that Ojogbane made a more serious prejudicial comment while on the programme by saying the commission was eager to see to the quick conclusion of the case to make it a reference point.
Destra Investment’s lawyer, Onwugbufor, also urged the court to dismiss the application to summon the Channels TV’s employees.
Onwugbufor said it was not the duty of the court to obtain and send evidence of alleged prejudicial comments made by the lawyers who appeared on the television’s programme to the LPDC.
He said it was EFCC or any other person interested in it to obtain the evidence and send it to the appropriate authorities.
On what happened on Justice Abang said, while interrupting Onwugbufor’s earlier submission, that the defendant “fell on his own”.
The judge noted that the defendant decided to fall on his own after allegedly defying the court’s directive that he should remain where he was seated.
Justice Abang said, “The court did not direct the doctor to attend to the defendant. I would not know the person that directed the doctor to see the defendant when I rose briefly upon hearing that the defendant fell down on his own.
“The court directed him to sit down where he was but he decided to fall down on his own.”
The judge also interrupted the prosecuting counsel to make the same clarification when the prosecution was opposing the request for adjournment by the defence.