We don’t need Jonathan to nail Metuh – EFCC

An attempt by the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to use technicalities to frustrate his current trial has been punctured by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, which insisted it does not require former President Goodluck Jonathan as its witness in order to prove its case Metuh.

This was contained in the anti-graft agency’s reaponse to the no case submission filed by Metuh before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Metuh is standing trial over allegations that he collected N400 million fraudulently from a former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki from the money meant for the procurement of arms. He was also accused of laumdering $2 million cash.

In Metuh’s no-case submission, he prayed the court to let him off on the grounds that the EFCC had made no case against him with the eight prosecution witnesses called and all the documents tendered.

He also argued that since PW5 (the Managing a Director of CMC Connect, Mr. Yomi Badejo-Okusanya), testified that he made presentation on a media campaign proposal to Jonathan and for which money was paid from the N400m, the prosecution ought to have called Jonathan because he is a vital witness.

In the response filed on Tuesday, the EFCC prayed the court to dismiss the no-case submission, adding that Jonathan was not needed to prove its case.

Read also: #Dasukigate: EFCC has no case against me, Metuh tells court

It stated, “My Lord, 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.”

RipplesNigeria …without borders, without fears

Join the conversation

Opinions

Support Ripples Nigeria, hold up solutions journalism

Balanced, fearless journalism driven by data comes at huge financial costs.

As a media platform, we hold leadership accountable and will not trade the right to press freedom and free speech for a piece of cake.

If you like what we do, and are ready to uphold solutions journalism, kindly donate to the Ripples Nigeria cause.

Your support would help to ensure that citizens and institutions continue to have free access to credible and reliable information for societal development.

Donate Now