For Olisa Metuh, the National Publicity Secretary of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, there is no more hiding place. On Monday, he is expected to open his defence to the seven count charge of money laundering levelled against him by the EFCC [caption id="attachment_40337" align="alignnone" width="450"] Olisa Metuh: No more hiding place[/caption] By Ayorinde Oluokun/Abuja Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Friday after a dramatic seven hour legal fireworks asked Olisa Metuh,the National Publicity Secretary of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to open his defence. It was the logical decision after Metuh's filibustering applications aimed at stopping the trial were dismissed. Metuh is facing a seven count charge of criminal breach of trust, corruption, money laundering involving $2m cash transaction and for allegedly receiving N400million from the Office of the National Security Adviser on Friday.Prosecuting is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. In count one of the seven-count charge, Metuh was accused of taking ‘possession of N400million paid into the account of Destra Investment Limited with Diamond Bank Plc Account No 0040437573 from the account of the ONSA with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) without contract award when he reasonably ought to have known that the said fund formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity. The offence, according to the EFCC is contrary to Section 15(2),(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 20111 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act. The prosecution had alleged that the N400 million was part of $2.1 budgeted for procurement of arms to fight Boko Haram in the ONSA, but which was diverted to fund the PDP 2015 presidential campaign of former President Goodluck Jonathan. Metuh was first arraigned in court over the charges on 15, January 2016 and the EFCC called eight witnesses to prove their allegations against him before closing its case on 18 February. The witnesses were able to graphically demonstrate how the N400 million were transferred into accounts of Metuh and how part of the funds were used to fund the 2015 campaign activities of PDP and how he used part of the funds to buy property in Lagos with all the necessary documents tendered to back up the allegations. To prove the Money Laundering charge, EFCC called operators of Bureau De Change who helped the PDP spokesperson converted the $2million into naira. The PDP spokesperson was asked to open his defence, but his lawyers made 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. In the no case submission, Onyechi Ikpeazu, leading five Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SAN argued that the prosecution could never have been able to make any case against him without the EFCC calling the former President as a witness in view of the testimony by one of the witnesses, Yomi Badejo Okusanya, the Managing a Director of CMC Connect that he made presentation on a media campaign proposal to Jonathan and for which money was paid from the N400m. He argued that the former President was a vital witness that ought to be called by the prosecution. In countering the argument, EFCC lawyer, Sylvester Tahir said the defence cannot pick and choose witnesses for the prosecution as what the law requires the prosecution to do is to call material witness(es) in proof of its case.” Tahir who noted that prima facie case of money laundering has been established against the accused argued that the defence must explains the reasons why Metuh received the sum of N400m from the ONSA It said Metuh ought to have known that the fund “directly represented the proceeds of an unlawful act” of the ex-NSA. [caption id="attachment_40874" align="alignnone" width="400"] Olisa Metuh: loses bid to stall trial[/caption]On the cash transactions of $2m, EFCC said it was above the statutory threshold of N5m for individuals and N10m for corporate bodies in violation of Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011. “The origin of the initial sum of $2m, which belongs to either of the defendants remained undocumented (which goes against the very essence of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act i.e. financing terrorism and disguising, concealment or laundering the origin of illicit funds.” While ruling on the submission, Justice Abang agreed with EFCC that Metuh indeed has a case to answer. For one, the Judge ruled that EFCC has made a prima facie case of money against the PDP spokesperson on counts 1 to 4 of the charges which bordered on allegations that he received the sum on N400 million from the ONSA. The Judge also ruled that a prima facie case has been proved against Metuh on count 5 and 6 which bordered on his receipt of $2 million from the office of NSA and money laundering. Justice Abang noted that the PDP Publicity Secretary agreed that N400 million was transferred to the account of Destra Investments in Diamond Bank which he was the sole signatory to. He added that the defence counsel argued that his client could not have known that the funds was from corrupt dealings of former NSA, Sambo Dasuki. The Judge said with the contention of the prosecution, it is incumbent of Metuh to prove that he did not know that the fund was from corrupt dealings of the office of the NSA. According to him, Metuh must tell the Court what he did when he discovered that N400 million has been transferred to his account. The PDP Publicity Secretary, Justice Abang said would need to answer questions like: When he knew that the sum of N400 million has been transferred into the Diamond Bank account of his company, did he enquire from the bank the source of the money? If he enquired, what did the bank tell him? If he did not, did he report to the Police? If he did, what was the Police findings and if he did not, why? He added that Metuh will also have to explain why he went ahead to disburse the money to chieftains of his party when he did not know the source. “If he answered these questions, then his response will show whether he knew the funds were from the unlawful activities of the NSA,” said Justice Abang. On the money laundering charge, the Judge said the defendant will have to prove to the court that contrary to the claims of the prosecution, he properly went through the banking system to exchange the $2 million to naira since the first prosecution who helped him to convert the funds to the local currency is a staff of Diamond Bank. And in tune with the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, Justice Abang said tracing the sources of funds are also important. Accordingly, he said Metuh will in his defence, tell the Court whether he actually gave the $2 million to the prosecution witnesses and as well as prove the source- whether the funds were legitimately or legally sourced. “The no case submission is dismissed. The defendant should enter his defence,” Justice Abang ruled while asking the spokesperson of former Nigeria ruling party to open his defence on 17 March. Rather than use the opportunity to prove his innocence, the PDP spokesperson with the support of his lawyers had embarked on an elaborate scheme to delay or totally stopped the trial. On 17 March when he was supposed to open his defence for example, it was discovered that his counsels had sent a petition to the Chief Justice of Federal High Court alleging bias against the Judge who Metuh said was his classmate at the Nigerian Law School. He consequently asked that his case file should be transferred to another judge who will begin to hear the case afresh. He also asked the Judge to disqualify himself from hearing further hearing of the case. In addition, Metuh had also filed an application asking for a stay of proceedings in the matter pending the hearing of an interlocutory appeal filed at the Court of Appeal on one of the rulings delivered in the course of the trial. Justice Abang had on 24 March fixed hearing and ruling on the petition and application for stay of proceedings for yesterday. Ahead of the hearing, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court had rejected request for transfer of the case to another Judge, arguing that hearing had gone far into the matter with witnesses already called. He also said in a letter copied to the defence counsel said the allegations of bias have been denied by Justice Abang and he found no merit in them. Not ready to give up, the defence team had come up with another obvious scheme to prolong the trial with request for adjournment of proceedings By Tochukwu Onwugbufor, SAN who brought a letter to the court indicating that he has just been appointed as lawyer to the second defendant in the case, Destra Investments which is solely owned by Metuh. Onwugbufor told the Court that he was just briefed on Thursday to take over the case. He also complained that the defence counsel refused to accept the service of the letter. Onwugbufor therefore asked the court to adjourn the case to enable him get all the records related to the case, put up effective defence so as to ensure fair trial for the second defendant. "It will be impossible for me to be ready for the argument," said Onwugbufor who added that he has not been served or responded to any of the processes. The Senior Advocate of Nigeria cited Section 36 (6 a, b, c) of the 1999 Constitution which he said guaranteed every person who is charged with a criminal offence should be given time and facility for preparation of his defence. He therefore asked the court to give him adequate time and facility in accordance to section 3 (b) of the Constitution to enable him prepare for the defence of his client. But he was opposed by the prosecution counsel who argued that by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the defence counsel who has been defending Metuh and his company should have given three days notice that he is withdrawing his services to the second respondent. He also noted that five Senior Advocates of Nigeria have been representing the two defendants in court and that all the processes are available to them. He therefore asked the court not to recognise Onwugbufor since he has not complied with the stipulations of ACJA as regards change of counsel. But Onwugbufor was supported by Etiaba who though agreed with the prosecution counsel that the business of the day is argument and adoption of written addresses on the petition that the Judge should disqualify himself from hearing the case, informed the Court that the second defendant had dispensed with his services: "We are therefore asked by the second defendant to withdraw our appearance and that is why today, we announce our appearance for the first defendant alone." When the Judge asked Etiaba if he is ready to argue his case, he said he is ready except for the new development. Thus, Justice Abang was forced to make what he referred to as his "first findings" in the case that the Counsels that were present in court and have been conducting the case were bound to continue conducting the case. He also noted that records of the Court show that all the applications and processes related to the case have been filed by them. The Judge who noted that fair hearing in the case applies to the defendant, not the counsel seeking to come in noted that none of the parties have been denied fair hearing. "The defendant is being represented by five SANs. The last date parties were in court was 24 March, over three weeks ago, over three days stipulated by ACJA if the second defendant which is an entity controlled by the first defendant had wished to disengage the services of the counsel, he has more than enough time to have briefed another counsel to take up his defence." In relation to records of proceedings, the Judge noted that there is a pending interlocutory appeal in which all the proceedings and documents related to the trial have been compiled and given to the defence team. "The party briefing the new lawyer has all the documents. The second application for adjournment, application for disqualification should be taken," noted the Judge. Even with the ruling, the elderly Onwugbufor persisted, insisting on an adjournment of proceedings to enable him argue the case of his client. But the Judge insisted that the second's defendant's change of counsel cannot stop proceedings. "The second defendant was represented in court when the matter was adjourned. If the second defendant has chosen to change counsel, that cannot stop proceedings. The second defendant's right to fair hearing is guaranteed. Emeka Etiaba who appeared for the second defendant is still in court. He has not complied with ACJA. He is still the counsel to the second defendant," Justice Abang ruled when Onwugbufor persisted in his argument for adjournment when his input to the application asking the court to disqualify itself from hearing of the case was being argued. After the defence and prosecution counsel had argued briefs earlier adopted, Justice Abang dismissed the suit asking him to disqualify himself from further hearing of the case. The Judge ruled that the petitioners provided no fact or evidence to show that the court is biased against him and that he has responded to the petition. He affirmed that the CJN is satisfied with his petition. He therefore declared that the petition not only lacks merit, but was an abuse of court process and consequently dismissed it. He then asked the parties to address him on the application to suspend hearing pending the determination of interlocutory appeal filed at the Court of Appeal by the defence team. In response, Etiaba appealed to the court to grant the stay because it is harmless and due to the fact that the Court of Appeal has already fixed 28 April for hearing of the suit among other reasons. But again, Onwugbufor insisted that he has not been given the facility to make oral argument and embarked on lengthy arguments of why the proceedings should be adjourned to allow him study the court processes and applications to put up effective defence. The elderly lawyer therefore asked the court again for an adjournment to enable him study the court processes. He was opposed by the prosecuting counsel who argued that none of the leading counsels who have been defending the defendant had applied to withdraw from the case. The prosecutor added that the Counsels have also not complied with conditions for withdrawal from the case as stipulated by ACJA. As will be expected, Etiaba again aligned with Onwugbufor in the last attempt to delay the trial asking the court to allow the defendant to look at the application, appraise it and know what his stand will be on it. In his ruling, Justice Abang affirmed that the Court has not given Etiaba who has been defending the second defendant the leave to disappear, as the lawyer failed to notify the court that he is withdrawing from the case the last time he was in court. "The second defendant has a right to change his counsel, but he cannot do so to frustrate trial," the Judge ruled as he dismissed the application for adjournment. The Court finally nailed the coffin of the bid to delay the trial with its ruling on the application asking for stay of proceedings pending the determination of interlocutory injunction filed at the Appeal Court. In his ruling, Justice Abang noted that section 306 of ACJA had forbidden granting of such stay of proceedings in criminal matters. The Judge also noted that the Court of Appeal has not made any order for stay of proceedings and as such, the application cannot frustrate proceedings from going on. He further held that the Lagos Division of the Appellate Court had upheld the provisions of section 306 of ACJA as "a new and proactive development which fundamentally is to guarantee speedy trial,"and therefore, the application in line with the ruling of the Appeal Court and Section 306 is hereby dismissed." He also ruled that the second defendant who had already been granted the maximum number of adjournments allowed by ACJA is the party to the case and not Onwugbufor. "The second defendant is not entitled to other adjournments.The defendant is now called upon to call his witnesses if he has any," the Judge ruled. But on looking at his watch and seeing it was already 4.09 pm on the matter which began at 9.00 am, the Judge promptly directed that Metuh will now open its defence on Monday. Barring the defence team coming up with any fresh legal gymnastics, it will be interesting to see how the PDP spokesperson will justify the funds he received from the ONSA when the trial resumes.