Prosecutor protests Metuh’s ‘prolonged testimony’ that has lasted three days

The prosecution counsel in the trial of former Peoples
Democratic Party spokesperson, Olisa Metuh, has objected to what he
described as the overstretching of needless detail by the defendant
in his trial.

Mr Metuh is facing trial on alleged diversion of N400 million
from the office of former National Security Adviser, Sambo
Dasuki.

He was brought to court on a seven-count charge by the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission on January 15, 2016.

After the prosecution closed its case barely a month later, Mr
Metuh was expected to begin his defence but argued that he had no
case to answer, a claim that was overruled by the Abuja Division of
the Federal High Court, venue of his trial under Justice Okon
Abang.

Dissatisfied with the Federal High Court ruling, Mr Metuh
appealed the decision at both the Appeal Court and the Supreme
Court.

Both courts however refused Mr Metuh’s application, resulting in
his presentation of 15 witnesses, including including a former
presidential aide, Doyin Okupe, who gave a personal account of when
the alleged diverted fund was paid to Mr Metuh, following a
discussion of the PDP leadership in November 2014.

Mr Metuh’s defence has also been affected by his health
condition.

As the 15th defence witness, Mr Metuh began testifying
personally before the court.

His personal evidence began briefly in July, but was postponed
till October 22.

On that day, however, Mr Metuh could not continue with his
testimony because of a prolonged debate by lawyers over the absence
of a principal defence lawyer, Tocbukwu Onwubufor.

On October 23, Mr Metuh continued his testimony and in a rather
long tale, narrated his journey into politics and his relationship
with past leaders, like Olusegun Obasanjo. He did not reach the
stage of discussing the allegation against him before the end of
the hearing that day.

On October 24, Mr Metuh again started testifying about his
emergence as the PDP spokesperson, but did not mention the details
about his charge.

On Thursday, the testimony appeared to be taking a similar
direction with the previous days, as Mr Metuh delved into
discussions on how he started what he described as an internal
opposition in a bid to make PDP leaders more aware about the views
of some groups within the party.

In reaction to the seeming prolonged testimony, the prosecution
counsel, Sylvanus Tahir, asked the court to use its discretion to
prevent Mr Metuh from proceeding with what Mr Tahir described as
remote facts.

“We have waited patiently. This court is a court of record,” he
said. “The court has been patient. The evidence given should be in
conformity with the charge against the defendant.

“We invite your lordship to know that the charges brought
against the defendant bother on seven counts. He is alleged to have
diverted N400 million, allegedly gotten from the office of the NSA,
being the proceeds of an unlawful act. The other components of the
charge deals with the diversion of the sum of N2 million, US
dollars.

“These are basically the charge for which the accused person
stands trial. Going by the oral testimony of the defendant so far,
this should be the fourth day.

“No attempt has been has been made discuss the issue for which
he is in court,” said Mr Tahir.

He urged the court to take note of sections in the Evidence Act,
relating to the presentation of evidence.

“Evidence may be given in any suit of the proceedings of the
existence of every fact to the issue. The court may exclude facts
which is considered to be too remote,” he said.
“Some of the things been said are not relevant and are too remote
to the case.”

In a reaction, Mr Metuh’s lawyer, Onyeachi Ikpeazu, a Senior
Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court to also consider the
provisions of the constitution which makes it obligatory for the
court to give fair hearing to all sides.

In a ruling, however, Mr Abang said he would determine the
irrelevant part of the evidence at the end of the matter.

“It is my view that it is not out of place for the objection of
this nature to be raised. The objection of the SAN is also noted,”
Mr Abang said.

“I cannot at this stage determine which evidence is relevant and
remote. It is like urgiing the court to determine a substantive
issue at an interlocutory application.

“It will be at the end of the proceedings that the court will
determine whether the evidence if valid or not. If the evidence of
relevant, it will reflect in the judgment.”