Metuh’s Case: For N1bn, I’ll Testify – Jonathan

BY VICTOR BUORO, ABUJA – It is bad news for former National Publicity Secretary of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh over the alleged corruption charges against him as ex-President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan on Monday, prayed the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to set aside the subpoena compelling him to testify as a witness in the on-going graft case.

The former President’s application is asking for an order of court wholly setting aside the issuance and service of the subpoena ad testificandum issued by the court on October 23, 2017, for the purpose of compelling him to personally appear in court to give evidence in proceedings of a charge delineated FHC/ABJ/ CR/05/2016.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria filed the said suit against Metuh and Destra Investment Limited with a seven-count criminal charge.

In the alternative, Jonathan, in a motion by his counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), sought for an order from the presiding judge, Justice Okon Abang mandating Olisa Metuh to deposit the sum of one billion Naira with the court in accordance with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015; Section 241 (2).

According to the former President, the one billion Naira is meant to cover his travel expenses, including that of his security personnel from Otuoke to Abuja and other logistics as well as provision of adequate security for the period he might spend appearing before the court as former President between 2010 and 2015 and/or any other order the court may deem fit.

Dated October 27, 2017 and signed by his counsel, Chief Ozekhome, the motion on notice was brought before the court pursuant Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, Section 241(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Section 183 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court as preserved in Section 6 (6a & b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered.

The ex-President’s counsel said the evidence Metuh is seeking will amount to an invasion of his client’s personal right to privacy, and family life as provided for in Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered, just as he said the evidence being sought from him is likely to expose him to a criminal charge, penalty and forfeiture, especially as the subpoena is vague and applied for on a frivolous ground.

In addition, he said the application for a subpoena on him to appear and give evidence in the charge against Metuh was in bad faith as it was meant to embarrass him and subject him to public ridicule, odium and obloquy.

According to his application before the court, ex-president further averred that Metuh was not his personal aid or appointee while he was Nigeria’s President and could not have direct dealings with him under any circumstance to warrant his invitation to give testimony in the criminal charge against him.

For ex-President Jonathan, the seven-count-charge against Metuh for which he was invited to testify has no nexus or connection to him because during his tenure, there were people appointed into various positions of authority to carry out the day-to-day running of government activities and he believed in their competence to discharge such duties to the best of their ability in the overall interest of the nation.

He said such existing arrangement indicates that these appointees directly related with him and not any third parties, adding that these appointees are therefore in the best position to explain or give testimony on the daily activities of government under their supervision.

On the alternate order mandating Metuh to deposit with the court the sum of one billion Naira for his travel expense, ex-President Jonathan explained that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Section 241(2) provides that he is not obliged to appear in court except Metuh, who is presenting him as a witness adequately takes care of his travel expenses.

The ex-President Jonathan’s motion on notice is supported by a six-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Usman Salihu, a litigation officer with Mike Ozekhome’s law firm and a written address that had points of argument supporting the motion.