It was a bad day at the court yesterday for the spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, as he failed in efforts to stall proceedings in his trial, following which Justice Okon Abang ordered him to open his defence on Monday, failing which he will lose the opportunity.
Metuh and his company, Destra Investment limited, are being tried before the Federal High Court, Abuja for unlawfully receiving N400m from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) and engaging in money laundering.
Yesterday, Justice Abang, in a series of rulings, rejected all applications by Metuh and Destra, which the judge said were only intended to stall proceedings in the case. Yesterday’s proceedings lasted for about seven hours (from 9am to after 4pm).
At a point, Metuh, who had complained that he was not allowed to sit in court, pleaded with the court to allow him walk for some minutes, having sat for a long time. The proceedings were later suspended about 10 minutes in view of Metuh’s request.
The first ruling was on a motion in which the defendants urged the judge to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case and refer it back to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.
The defendants hinged the motion on their claim, among others, that the judge had exhibited bias in his handling of the case. They had made similar allegations in a petition to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, which Justice Auta rejected and directed Justice Abang to continue to hear the case.
Dismissing the motion yesterday, Justice Abang upheld the argument by the prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, to the effect that the defendants failed to provide sufficient facts to support their claim that the judge was biased.
The judge also refused another motion by Metuh and his company, praying the court to adjourn the case indefinitely, pending the determination of an application for stay of proceedings which they filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
In refusing the application, the judge held that such prayer would have been granted in deference to the Court of Appeal, if the case was a civil one.
He was of the view that the case, being a criminal one, the extant law regulating criminal proceedings in the country – the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 frowns at such interlocutory (mid-proceedings) adjournment with its provision in Section 306.
The judge also noted that there was no order by the Court of Appeal staying proceedings before his court and that, by virtue of the provision of Section 306 of the ACJA, it would be wrong for the court to grant such adjournment.
Justice Abang equally rejected some other oral applications for adjournment made by lawyers to Metuh and his company.
One of such application was by Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) who urged the court to adjourn the case on the grounds that he was briefed the previous day to represent Metuh’s company, even when both Metuh and his company were, before yesterday, jointly represented by a team of lawyers made up of five Senior Advocates.
Onwugbufor, at the commencement of proceedings, urged the court to adjourn to enable him apply and receive records of proceedings in the case, to familiarise himself with the case, to receive proper briefing from his client and to allow him sufficient time to prepare for his client’s defence.
He argued that it was the right of his client to be accorded all the necessary facilities, including sufficient time to enable him prepare his defence.
The Senior Advocate complained that the Court’s Registrar and prosecution lawyer refused to accept the letter he brought to court yesterday, seeking adjournment on the ground that he was just briefed.
Responding, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir argued that the team of lawyers representing the defendants have failed to comply with the condition precedent, as provided in Section 349(7) and (8) of the ACJA to qualify Onwugbufor to appear in the case as a new lawyer for Destra.
He argued that by the provision, a lawyer withdrawing from a case is required to inform the court at least, three days before the next hearing date.
“Section 349 (7) & (8) of the ACJA provides for how a counsel in a matter should conduct his case and procedure for disengagement.
“Up till now, there is no such notice of disengagement from the firms of the five Senior Advocates, namely Onyechi Ikpeazu, Chris Uche, Ifedayo Adedipe, Emeka Etiaba and Goody Uche, who have been representing the defendants from inception.
“There is no notice of withdrawal by any of the lawyers mentioned either in group or individually. If such letter exists, it has not been served on the prosecution. Rather than comply with the law, we are told that a counsel, seeking to come in, who has not properly been allowed in, is writing for an adjournment.
“Without complying with Section 349(7)(8), this court cannot take cognisance of the presence of Onwugbufor SAN,” Tahir said.
On Onwugbufor’s argument that refusing his application for adjournment would amount to denial of fair hearing, Tahir argued that that issue does not arise.
“Fair hearing envisaged in the Constitution is to a party in the case and not to his counsel, who seeks to come in at the 11th hour, without following due procedure.
“Right from the inception of this case, no party has been denied fair hearing. The defendants have not claimed that proceedings were conducted in a language they do not understand.
“There is no complaint that they have been denied the right to legal representation. In fact they have a consortium of five Senior Advocates and a legion of junior lawyers representing them.
“The requirement of fair hearing by the Constitution has been observed to the letter in this case. We were last in court on March 24. Between then and now, if the 2nd defendant, which is an entity owned by the 1st defendant (Metuh), had wished to disengage its lawyer, it has enough time to have done that.”
He urged the court to refuse the application for adjournment, a request the judge, in his ruling upheld and refused to adjourn on the strength of Onwugbufor’s application.
Following the judge’s last ruling, rejecting his plea for adjournment, Onwugbufor refused to sit down, insisting the judge must hear his last submission. He was still standing when the judge, who ordered Metuh and his company to open their defence by calling their witnesses, later adjourned to Monday, April 11 (for the defence to open its case).
Although the case involving former Chief of Defence staff, Alex Badeh, was later called, trial could not go on because of time constraint. The judge adjourned the case to April 12.
END
Be the first to comment