An application filed by
former President Goodluck Jonathan before the Federal High Court in
Abuja has revealed further reasons why he wants to be excused from
appearing as a witness in defence of a former National Publicity
Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party , Olisa Metuh .
Metuh
is standing trial on charges involving , among others, the N 400 m he (
Metuh ) received from the Office of the National Security Adviser in
2014 .
The former President in his motion challenging the
subpoena issued on him , stated that with “ with several attempts by
some persons in the current dispensation , to harass , intimidate and
rubbish” his reputation and that of his wife , the witness summon issued
on him upon Metuh ’ s request was a ploy to drag his name in the mud.
He
also argued in the motion filed on his behalf by his lawyer , Chief
Mike Ozekhome (SAN) , on Monday , that his testimony being sought in
Metuh ’ s trial , would not only amount to an invasion of his right to
privacy , it would also expose him to a criminal charge , penalty or
forfeiture .
He recalled that there had been attempts to seize
the properties and bank accounts of his wife , Patience , her relatives
and her pet non -governmental organisation .
These are contained
in an affidavit , filed in support of the motion filed on behalf of
Jonathan by Ozekhome on Monday , seeking an order to set aside the
subpoena ordering him to appear in court as Metuh ’ s witness.
As
an alternative prayer, the motion sought an order directing Metuh to
deposit with the court for Jonathan , the sum of N 1 bn to cover
travelling expenses for himself and his security personnel from his home
town, Otuoke in Bayelsa State, to Abuja .
A litigation secretary
in Ozekhome’ s law firm , Mr. Usman Salihu, who deposed to the
affidavit filed in support of the motion , said he spoke with Jonathan
through a phone call in the presence of the lead counsel , Ozekhome, at
about 10am on October 29 (Sunday ).
Salihu stated in the
affidavit that although Jonathan had not been served with the subpoena ,
he but had read about it in the media.
He stated that Jonathan was shocked on learning of the witness summon issued against him at Metuh ’ s behest.
He also denied knowing anything about the charges preferred against Metuh by the EFCC.
Salihu
stated, “ That he (Jonathan ) has read in the media of a witness
summons issued by this honourable court requiring him to come . before
the court for the purpose of testifying before the court, in charge No:
FHC/ABJ /CR /05 /2016 .
“ That there have been several attempts
by some persons in the current dispensation to harass , intimidate and
rubbish his reputation and that of his wife .
“ That several
attempts have been made to attach or seize the accounts and properties
of his wife , her relatives and her pet , NGO . Most of the cases filed
for and against such moves are currently pending before various courts
across Nigeria .
“ That when he read about the summons issued on
him at the behest of the 2 nd respondent , Olisa Metuh , he was shocked
as he verily believes strongly that it forms part of the ploy to drag
his name into the mire .
“ That he knows nothing pertaining to
the seven counts for which Olisa Metuh , the first defendant in the
charge is standing trial and consequently , has absolutely nothing to
say as a witness before the court in respect thereof .
“ That he
verily believes that the evidence sought to be obtained from him will
amount to an invasion of his personal right to privacy and family life ,
as guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution .
“ That he verily
believes that the evidence sought from him , is likely to expose him to a
criminal charge , penalty or forfeiture. ”
He further argued that the subpoena was vague and applied for and obtained on frivolous grounds .
Salihu added that the subpoena was obtained in bad faith as it was meant to embarrass the person of the applicant .
He
argued that Metuh was not a personal aide or an appointee of the
applicant herein and so could not have dealt with the President directly
under any circumstance to warrant the invitation of the applicant to
testify in the charge .
Salihu also submitted that there was no
nexus between the applicant and Metuh and the charge for which Metuh was
standing trial . He also said he knew nothing about the charges preferred against Metuh .
At
the Tuesday’ s proceedings , Metuh ’ s lawyer , Mr. Emeka Etiaba (SAN
), told Justice Okon Abang that his client ’ s request to call Jonathan
as witness had been “ misconstrued outside this court. ”
He said
pained by it , his client would sit with the legal team to review the
motion filed by Ozekhome on behalf of Jonathan in order to take a
position on it .
He said , “Efforts by the first defendant (Metuh
) to avail himself of necessary evidence in his trial has been
misconstrued outside this court and the first defendant feels very
pained because of the dangerous insinuation that has been ascribed to
his decision to call evidence that will help him to go through this
phase of his life .
“ May I finally submit that the first
defendant will go through the application with us and take a decision on
what to go with Ozekhome’ s motion . ”
Meanwhile , the trial judge, Justice Okon Abang , on Tuesday, fixed Wednesday (today ) for the hearing of Jonathan’ s motion.
The judge also fixed Wednesday for the hearing of a motion by Dasuki .
Dasuki
’ s lawyer, Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN) , told the judge on Tuesday that his
client ’ s motion for “ an adjournment of the proceedings relating to
the subpoena issued on him pending the determination of the motion filed
before the Court of Appeal praying the stay execution of the said
subpoena . ”
But the judge said the outcome of his ruling on
Dasuki ’ s application would determine whether or not to deliver a
ruling on Jonathan ’ s motion.
He explained that if Dasuki ’ s
motion succeeded , it implied that the matter would be adjourned as
requested by the ex - NSA, and if it failed , the court would go ahead
to deliver the ruling on Jonathan’ s motion.
Although, he ordered
the Department of State Services to produce in court on Wednesday,
Justice Abang directed that the outcome of the ruling on the ex - NSA’ s
motion would determine if the detainee would testify during the
proceedings .
But the judge declined an oral application by the
counsel for Metuh ’ s co- defendant, Destra Investments Limited ,
Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) , requesting an order of arrest of the
Director General of the DSS , Mr. Lawal Daura, for failing to produce
Dasuki in court on Wednesday .
After hearing the lawyers ’
submission in the case , Justice Abang held that it could not be
established that Daura had flouted the court order directing him to
produce Dasuki in court.
“ I cannot come to a conclusion that the
Director General of DSS has flouted the court order to produce Col.
Sambo Dasuki (retd . ), ” he ruled .
He insisted that the issue of Dasuki ’ s production should be handled administratively between the DSS and the EFCC.
He added , “ I will give further opportunity to the DG of DSS to produce Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd . ) in court. ”
With
respect to Jonathan, the judge noted that since Jonathan had yet to be
personally served with the witness summon, the option left was to serve
him through substituted means as provided for in the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act.
The judge, however , said if Metuh was
interested in bringing Jonathan to court, he (Metuh ) who was the one
who requested the ex - President “ ought to know what to do . ”
But
Ozekhome, after he was granted permission to speak on the Dasuki issue,
despite the objection of prosecuting and defence lawyers on record in
the case , supported the call for Daura’ s arrest , contending that the
failure of the DSS to produce the ex - NSA in court on Tuesday, amounted
to taking the court for a ride.
Justice Abang had on October 25,
given the court bailiff five days to effect personal service of the
subpoena on Jonathan and also directed the prosecuting counsel , Mr.
Sylvanus Tahir, to persuade the management of the EFCC to liaise with
the DSS to produce Dasuki in court on Tuesday (today ).
At the resumed hearing of the case on Tuesday, the court asked the prosecuting counsel about the situation of things.
In response, Tahir narrated the EFCC’ s efforts in complying with the court order, directing the EFCC to liaise with the DSS .
Tahir added that he had taken further steps to speak with the Legal Adviser of the DSS .
Tahir
said the DSS ’ Legal Adviser informed him that Dasuki refused to be
brought to court on the advice of his (Dasuki ’ s ) counsel.
In
response, Metuh ’ s lawyer , Etiaba, urged the court to disregard Tahir’
s submission as it was not admissible because it amounted to hearsay
and was not backed by any affidavit stating the facts .
But
counsel representing Metuh ’ s firm , Destra Investments Limited and the
second defendant, Chief Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) , urged the court to
order Daura’ s arrest .
While also arguing that Tahir’ s
submission was inadmissible , Onwugbufor maintained that it was
inconceivable that Dasuki could be more powerful than the DSS that was
detaining him .
He argued that the DSS ’ conduct by failing to produce Dasuki in court was an act of disrespect to the court.
Onwugbufor thereby urged the court “ to apply the consequences provided by the law. ”
He
said , “I do not think it lies in the mouth of the DSS to say that he
(Dasuki ) refused to comply with the order of the court. ”
He
asked the court to apply the provisions of section 244 of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act by ordering Lawal ’ s arrest .
He
said , “This is more contemptuous that the DSS fails to appear before
the court to explain the situations in their environment .
“ My lord this is unacceptable .
“
If they have an atom of respect for the court, they would appear before
your lordship this morning and I refer your lordship to section 244 of
ACJA .
“ Your lordship has the power to issue an arrest warrant
against DSS , ” adding that “ your lordship will now issue a warrant of
arrest against the Director General of DSS in person . ”
When
asked if the court could order Lawal ’ s arrest when the name of the DSS
’ DG was not specifically mentioned in the order directing that Dasuki
be produced in court, Onwugbufor said , “I agree that his name is not
mentioned but it has legal consequences and connotation . ”
No comments
Post a Comment