Chief Olisa Metuh
Nigeria's anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) has explained why it does not need former president,
Goodluck Jonathan as its witness in order to prove its money laundering
case against Olisa Metuh, the national publicity secretary of the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
This disclosure was made in response to oppose a 'no-case submission' filed before Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court in Abuja by embattled PDP spokeman, Metuh.
The PDP spokesman and his company, Destra Investments Limited, are
being prosecuted by the EFCC on seven counts fraud which include
allegations that he fraudulently received from the Office of the
National Security Adviser in November, 2014 the sum of N400m meant for
the procurement of arms and money laundering involving $2m cash
transaction.
The prosecution alleged that part of the N400m was used by Metuh to
fund the PDP’s presidential campaign for the 2015 election in which
Jonathan was the party’s candidate. After the prosecution closed its
case, Metuh on February 18, sought and obtained the leave of court to
file a no-case submission.
In the no-case submission, Metuh urged the court to discharge and
acquit him on the grounds that the EFCC had made no case against him
with the eight prosecution witnesses called and all the documents
tendered.
Lead counsel to Metuh, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), who filed the no-case
submission, argued that the prosecution could never have been able to
make any case against him without the EFCC calling Jonathan as a witness
in view of the testimony by PW5 (fifth prosecution witness).
Olisa Metuh during one of his court
He argued that since PW5 (the Managing a Director of CMC Connect,
Yomi Badejo-Okusanya), had testified that he made presentation on a
media campaign proposal to Jonathan and for which money was paid from
the N400m, the former President was a vital witness that ought to be
called by the prosecution.
The EFCC in its response, which it filed on Tuesday, urged the
court to dismiss the no-case submission, insisting that Jonathan was not
needed to prove its case.
It stated, "My Lord, in paragraphs 2.22 to 2.25, the defence
also contends that the prosecution, through PW8 (EFCC’s investigative
officer, Junaid Sa’id) failed to investigate the statement of the 1st
defendant (Metuh) to the effect that presentation was made to Dr.
Goodluck Jonathan and that the sum for the exercise was paid into the
2nd defendant’s account (Metuh’s firm, Destra).
"It is further contended that the former President, to whom the
presentation was made for which the payment was made, is therefore a
material and indispensable person in order for a prima facie case to be
established.
"Learned senior counsel (Metuh’s lawyer) therefore alleged presumption of withholding of evidence by the prosecution.
"In response to the above argument my lord, we submit that
nothing can be farther from the truth. The defence cannot pick and
choose 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."
The anti-graft agency, through his lead prosecuting counsel, Mr.
Sylvanus Tahir, urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission filed
by Metuh and his firm and direct them to give an explanation to 'the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution.'
No comments:
Post a Comment