N400m fraud: My life under threat over Jonathan’ s summon- Metuh
A former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Olisa Metuh has told a Federal High Court in Abuja that his life and that of his lawyers are under threat following move to summon former President Goodluck Jonathan to testify in the N400million case against him.
He made the allegations just as the the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday asked the court to order Metuh to close his defence if he can not produce Jonathan to testify or call another witness.
Lawyer to the EFCC, Mr Slyvanus Tahir, made the submission at the resumed hearing of trial as he stated that Metuh had called eight witnesses which were sufficient .
Metuh is facing trial for alleged diversion of N400 million from the Office of the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.
Lead lawyer to Metuh, Onyeachi Ikpeazu (SAN) had at the beginning of trial asked the court to compel two major witnesses, Dasuki and former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear as witnesses for the defence.
Following that request, Dasuki appeared in court in November but testified that he did not have details of the connection of Metuh with the fund he was accused of diverting.
Dasuki said he needed to consult his documents to give the details.
The court had in the last sitting ordered its bailiff to serve a subpoena on Jonathan at his Abuja residence, following the request of Metuh.
The court also noted that the inability to serve Jonathan directly would cede responsibility to the defence to apply for service of the court order by substituted means.
But on Monday, the court bailiff read an affidavit wherein he confirmed making another attempt to serve Jonathan but was told by his (Jonathan’s) security official that Jonathan would be available to receive the subpoena on December 11.
After hearing from the court bailiff, one of the lawyers to Metuh, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), drew the attention of the court to certain issues.
He said, “I want to bring two facts before this court. The first is that when we wanted to serve Dasuki with our subpoena, the attempt by the bailiff was not that smooth. As at that time, there were insinuations that we did not indeed want Dasuki to come and testify in this court.
“But eventually he was served and has since come and testified and we are very satisfied with his evidence.
“The second is that before this court is yet another issue, relating to the execution of another subpoena on no less a person than the former president of this country.
“This subpoena is one that has generated quite a lot of controversy and threats not just to our clients but to myself. The threat goes to the lives of the first defendants, myself and Dr. Onyeachi Ikpeazu.”
“This will not make us change our mind as to whether His Excellency will come and testify or not,” he added, asking for extended time to allow the bailiff issue the subpoena on Jonathan on December, 11.
“But we shall only plead with the court to allow the bailiff make another attempt to serve the notice on December 11.
“We make this application on the believe of the fact that we don’t want to turn this witness into an adversary, but we want him to come to court as a witness who was freely subscribed to as a witness and a witness who decided on
his own to obey the order of court to come and testify.
“We ask that the bailiff be given an opportunity to serve the subpoena on His Excellency Dr. Goodluck Jonathan even as we can infer from the affidavit that he will allow him”.
Asked whether the defence had another witness to call or if Metuh would not testify in his own defence, Etiaba said the defence planned to listen first to Jonathan before determining to either allow Metuh testify or not.
He further stated that since the defence had already planned out its procedure for presentation of witnesses, any attempt by the court to alter the plan would result in Etiaba’s withdrawal as Metuh’s lawyer.
Responding, the EFCC’s lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, asked the court to compel Metuh to serve Jonathan through substituted means.
Tahir said although section 123 (a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act allowed for personal service of court orders, the law also provides for substituted means of service, where there is a challenge in ensuring personal service.
In an attempt to secure a clear reaction from the prosecution regarding the subpoena, Justice Okon Abang asked Tahir to react to the application for time by the defence lawyer.
Justice Abang noted that he had informed the defence during the previous sitting that it was entitled to requesting to serve Jonathan through substituted means.
Tahir responded by asking the court to set aside the subpoena if the defence was unwilling to apply for substituted means of service to Jonathan.
Tahir also asked the court to direct the defence team to either present its next witness or invoke section 250 (2) (b) of the ACJA by determining that Metuh has closed his case.
But the court has threatened to set aside the subpoena on the former president if Metuh fails to serve him on December 11.
Justice Abang expressed concern over the delay by Metuh in getting former president Jonathan to testify as his witness.
The Judge added that after three failed attempts by the bailiff of the court to effect service of the subpoena on Jonathan as requested by Metuh, he “ought to have taken steps to serve the former president by substituted means.
The judge then said, “Failure to do so in my view is to delay the trial. The first defendant (Metuh) has 27 days and he failed to utilise it by directing the court bailiff on what to do with the subpoena.
“Where a defendant by his conduct seeks to frustrate proceedings of court of law, the court has powers to set aside the witness summons Whether served or not, if the existence of the process will hold the court to ransome and further cause delay.
“The court cannot be held to ransome by anybody. Where the conduct of the defendant is such that he is not willing to conclude his case, or take timeously to serve a subpoena on a witness, such a summon can be set aside.
The judge disagreed with Tahir who urged the court to invoke section 250 (2) (b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and direct Metuh to close his case on the grounds that he has provided sufficient evidence in the case.
In his bench ruling, Justice Abang held that section 250 (2) (b) of the ACJA referred to by the prosecution was not applicable in Metuh’s case.
He however said that “where a defendant is not willing to call a witness, the prosecution can under the inherent powers of the court enshrined in section 6(a) of the 1999 Constitution moved the court to close the case of the defendant.”
Justice Abang also faulted the submission of Metuh’s lawyer to the effect that the evidence of former President Jonathan would determine whether or not Metuh will give evidence in his case.
The judge said such submissions is not known to law and was made in bad faith as criminal trial is not a game of hide and seek.
The judge said, “Criminal trial is not a game of hide and seek. It is not a game where a party will take another by surprise.
“Having said these, I am however inclined, though reluctantly to give the bailiff another opportunity to effect service of the subpoena on former President Jonathan and the defendant the ample opportunity to defend his case in the overall interest of justice.”
Metuh’s lawyer, Mr. Emeka Etiaba (SAN), had earlier told Justice Abang that he, the lead defence lawyer , Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), and Metuh himself, had received threats to their lives following their move to have Jonathan summoned to testify in the case.
The senior lawyer, who did not disclose the nature of the threats to court, however, said they would not yield to the threat as they would insist Jonathan testify in the case.
Etiaba said, “This subpoena is one that has generated quite a lot of controversy, not just to our client but to myself. The threat goes to the life of our client (Metuh), myself and Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu.
“This will not make us change our mind as to whether His Excellency, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, will come and testify or not. But we shall only plead with this honourable court to allow us make another attempt on December 11, 2017 at serving him with the subpoena.
“We don’t want to turn Jonathan into an adversary witness, but we want him to come to court as a witness who is freely subscribed to it and as a witness who on his own obey the order of court, to come and testify.
“In the circumstances, we are asking that the bailiff be given another opportunity to serve the subpoena on Jonathan even as we can infer from his affidavit that on that day, he can be able to serve him. We therefore asked for an adjournment to enable this process run out.
Meanwhile, a bailiff of the Court said after several attempts, he might be able to serve former President Jonathan with the subpoena summoning him to testify as a defence witness in the case on December 11, 2017.
In his affidavit filed before the court, the bailiff, Abu Peter informed the court how he made several failed attempts to serve the former President in his Abuja home.
The affidavit which was read by a court registrar during yesterday’s proceedings, stated that at the last attempt to serve Jonathan, a guard said the former President have travelled abroad and would only be available on December 11.
Reading from the bailiff’s affidavit, the registrar said the bailiff was asked to return to the residence in the afternoon of December 11 to serve the former President.
Justice Abang later adjourned the case till today for continuation of trial.
Andrew Orolua, Abuja
