The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC), has in a response filed before Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court in Abuja, said it does not require former President Goodluck Jonathan as its witness in order to prove its money-laundering case against the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), Mr. Olisa Metuh. This is coming on the heels of the no-case submission by Metuh. Recall Metuh and his company, Destra Investments Limited, are being prosecuted by the EFCC on seven counts fraud. The charges include allegations that he fraudulently received from the Office of the National Security Adviser in November, 2014 the sum of N400m meant for the procurement of arms and money laundering involving $2m cash transaction.
After the prosecution closed its case, Metuh on February 18, sought and obtained the leave of court to file a no-case submission. Metuh, who filed the no-case submission through his lead counsel, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), argued that the prosecution could never have been able to make any case against him without the EFCC calling Jonathan as a witness in view of the testimony by PW5 (fifth prosecution witness).
He argued that since PW5 (the Managing a Director of CMC Connect, Mr. Yomi Badejo-Okusanya), had testified that he made presentation on a media campaign proposal to Jonathan and for which money was paid from the N400m, the former President was a vital witness that ought to be called by the prosecution. Justice Abang had fixed Thursday to entertain argument for and against the no-case submission.
Meanwhile, the EFCC, in its response, which it filed on Tuesday, urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission, insisting that Jonathan was not needed to prove its case. 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.”
