The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has warned PDDP spokesperson, Olisa Metuh, to busy himself with how to defend the allegations of fraud and money laundering against him rather than seeking to malign the judge trying his case with the aim of scuttling his trial.
The EFCC argued that Metuh’s unsubstantiated allegation of bias against Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and his claim that they (Metuh and Justice Abang) were mates at the Law School do not constitute a sufficient ground to ask the judge to quit the trial.
EFCC is prosecuting Metuh and Destra Investment Limited on a seven-count charge of fraud and money laundering in relation to the N400million he allegedly received unlawfully from ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki and the $2million he allegedly got as gift at the last PDP national convention where ex-President Goodluck Jonathan was adopted as the party’s sole candidate for the last election.
The EFCC argued that Metuh’s unsubstantiated allegation of bias against Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and his claim that they (Metuh and Justice Abang) were mates at the Law School do not constitute a sufficient ground to ask the judge to quit the trial.
EFCC is prosecuting Metuh and Destra Investment Limited on a seven-count charge of fraud and money laundering in relation to the N400million he allegedly received unlawfully from ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki and the $2million he allegedly got as gift at the last PDP national convention where ex-President Goodluck Jonathan was adopted as the party’s sole candidate for the last election.
Metuh and his company have been on trial in Justice Abang’s court since January 15 till the prosecution closed its case after calling eight witnesses, who were cross-examined by defence lawyers.
When they were to begin their defence, Metuh and his company, represented by a team led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), made a no-case submission, which the judge, on March 9, dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution made a case against them, which required them to enter a defence.
The EFCC, in its counter affidavit against their motion for the judge to quit the case and adjournment until the determination of their application at the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceedings at the Federal High Court, argued that Metuh and his company were trying to scuttle the trial.
Lead prosecution lawyer Sylvanus Tahir noted, in his written submission to the counter affidavit, that the allegations of bias and other claims by Metuh and Detra were intended to frustrate the trial as they had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction even when Metuh knew he was the judge’s schoolmate.
“All manner of allegations, as stated by the defendants, were cooked up by them just to justify frustrating the stalling of proceedings. We submit that the antics and gimmicks deployed by the defendants are nothing but mere afterthought and pure blackmail aimed at intimidating the court to drop the case in the guise or pretext of bias by the judge.
“The allegations of bias levelled by the defendants against the court relate merely to the exercise of judicial powers by the court, without any evidence of facts or circumstances that suggest that the court did, in fact, favour one side unfairly,” Tahiir said.
On Metuh’s claim that he was the judge’s school mate, Tahir argued that by virtue of the oath of office subscribed to by a judicial officer, a judge handling a case was only required to administer justice without fear or favour, irrespective of parties involved.
Justice Abang is expected to entertain parties’ arguments on all applications by Metuh and his company on April 8, following which it would be determined whether the defence would be accorded the last opportunity to open its case or the judge continue and give judgement against Metuh.
When they were to begin their defence, Metuh and his company, represented by a team led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), made a no-case submission, which the judge, on March 9, dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution made a case against them, which required them to enter a defence.
The EFCC, in its counter affidavit against their motion for the judge to quit the case and adjournment until the determination of their application at the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceedings at the Federal High Court, argued that Metuh and his company were trying to scuttle the trial.
Lead prosecution lawyer Sylvanus Tahir noted, in his written submission to the counter affidavit, that the allegations of bias and other claims by Metuh and Detra were intended to frustrate the trial as they had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction even when Metuh knew he was the judge’s schoolmate.
“All manner of allegations, as stated by the defendants, were cooked up by them just to justify frustrating the stalling of proceedings. We submit that the antics and gimmicks deployed by the defendants are nothing but mere afterthought and pure blackmail aimed at intimidating the court to drop the case in the guise or pretext of bias by the judge.
“The allegations of bias levelled by the defendants against the court relate merely to the exercise of judicial powers by the court, without any evidence of facts or circumstances that suggest that the court did, in fact, favour one side unfairly,” Tahiir said.
On Metuh’s claim that he was the judge’s school mate, Tahir argued that by virtue of the oath of office subscribed to by a judicial officer, a judge handling a case was only required to administer justice without fear or favour, irrespective of parties involved.
Justice Abang is expected to entertain parties’ arguments on all applications by Metuh and his company on April 8, following which it would be determined whether the defence would be accorded the last opportunity to open its case or the judge continue and give judgement against Metuh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment