The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss the no-case submission filed by the PDP spokesman, Olisa Metuh, insisting that the testimony of former President, Goodluck Jonathan was not needed to prove its money laundering case against Metuh.
The EFCC is prosecuting Metuh and his company, Destra Investments Limited, on seven counts charges of fraudulently receiving the sum of N400m meant for the procurement of arms from the Office of the National Security Adviser in November 2014, as well as the laundering of an amount involving $2m cash transaction.
It claimed that part of the N400m was used by Metuh to fund his party’s presidential campaign for the 2015 election in which Jonathan was the PDP candidate.
But after the prosecution closed its case, Metuh, on February 18, 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.
Metuh, who filed the no-case submission through his lead counsel, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, contended 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).
He disclosed that since PW5 (the Managing Director of CMC Connect, Mr. 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.
But the EFCC, in its response, which it filed on Tuesday, told the trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, that “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 argued.
Meanwhile, Justice Abang had fixed Thursday to entertain argument for and against the no-case submission.
Comments