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.