A former spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party, Olisa Metuh, arrived the Federal High Court, Abuja, venue of his ongoing corruption trial on a stretcher after being taken down from an ambulance.
The trial judge in the case of alleged fraud involving a former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, has ordered the prosecution of three Channels Television staff.
The judge, Okon Abang, also asked the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, to institute a case of alleged prejudicial comments against a lawyer, Benchux Nwosu. The lawyer represents Mr Metuh.
Mr Abang accused the award-winning television station of constituting itself into a court.
Mr Metuh is facing trial for alleged diversion of N400 million from the office of the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.
He is being tried alongside his company, Dextra investment.
How Controversy Began
Mr Metuh who had reported a case of spinal cord injury to the court shortly after his trial began, fell on his way to the dock during a proceeding in April.
After his fall, Mr Abang decided to proceed with the trial. He became furious when a medical doctor working for the court declared Mr Metuh unfit to proceed with the hearing that day.
The following day, Channels Television featured lawyers from both parties in the case during its popular early morning programme, Sunrise Daily.
Prosecution’s Allegations
After watching the programme, the prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, accused a defence lawyer, Mr Nwosu, of making a prejudicial statement on the matter to the media.
Mr Tahir accused the defence of making several prejudicial comments and said his client was particularly bordered because the lawyer (Nwosu) did not appear in court during the proceedings which he commented on at the television programme.
Subsequently, the judge ordered the television station to appear in court and explain why an order should not be made against it, regarding the matter.
When they appeared, the Channels Television team brought with it the recorded programme which resulted in the said allegation.
The court was however not able to watch the recorded programme till July 3.
Although the Channels Television programme is popular among Nigerians as panelists are invited to discuss crucial issues, Mr Abang was not impressed; saying the station had constituted itself into a court.
“So Channels Television has become a court of law,” Mr Abang said.
The recorded programme contained questions and answers put to lawyers from both sides of the matter, with a lawyer, Johnson Ojogbane, representing the prosecution, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, while Mr Nwosu represented the defence.
Mr Ojogbane however spoke through a telephone conversation, where he accused the prosecution of making up scenes to force the postponement of an imminent judgement regarding the matter.
Counter Accusation By Defence
In response to the submission of Mr Ojogbane, Mr Nwosu accused the prosecution of “desperately wanting to ensure the conviction of Mr Metuh.”
Mr Nwosu added that it seems the prosecution would stop at nothing to ensure the actualisation of its perceived objective. According to him, “the fight against corruption is supported by everyone, but the method must conform to the principles of natural justice and fairness.”
Judge’s Reaction
After watching the video, Mr Abang asked Channels Television to produce ten copies of transcriptions for the said programme, along with ten copies of the record made.
The judge who acknowledged that the programme was aired outside his jurisdiction said he would ensure that the case is referred to the judicial body with appropriate jurisdiction on the matter.
Subsequently, Mr Abang directed that the prosecution shall within ten days refer Mr Nwosu to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for the matter to be referred to NBA’s disciplinary committee which shall determine whether the statements by Mr Nwosu constitute a prejudicial comment or not.
Mr Abang further ruled that within 10 days from that day, the prosecution shall submit the copies to the AGF. According to the judge, the AGF shall file a case against Mr Nwosu and the three Channels Television staff who were the presenters of the programme. Their names are Chamberlain Usoh, Nneotaobase Egbe and Gimba Umar
The judge directed that the AGF shall for the sake of national interest and in defence of judges who cannot defend themselves, arraign the four affected persons in a court of law, so that the court determines whether their actions amounted to a disregard of judicial process or not.
Mr Abang, however, said he could not make any order regarding Mr Ojogbane because he did not see the lawyer in court and “has no way of ascertaining that he (Ojogbane) was the one referred to by the counsel in court.”
“I have not met him before. I cannot speculate who he is,” Mr Abang ruled.
Reversal Of Metuh Decision
The judge also reversed an earlier decision he made on Olisa Metuh’s defence.
Regarding an application filed by Mr Metuh for his case to be re-opened, Mr Abang said Mr Metuh had not advanced credible evidence to enable the court set aside its May 25 decision.
The court on that day ruled that the failure of Mr Metuh to appear in court with his lawyers meant that he was no longer ready to defend himself. Therefore the court closed the case.
On Tuesday, the judge said the defence counsel, Onyeachi Ikpeazu, was right in his submission that the power to grant his request was at the discretion of the court, because the case was closed while the court had not heard from the defence counsel.
Mr Abang said the nature of the proceedings on May 25 made Mr Ikpeazu’s application exceptional to the general rule that a court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgement.
“The fact still remains that the first defendant’s counsel was not heard before the court closed his case. It is in the light of the above that I agree with learned senior counsel, Ipeazu, that the court has jurisdiction to look at the application.”
According to Mr Abang, the first defendant, however, did not succeed in explaining the reasons behind his counsel’s absence in court.
He said Mr Metuh was supposed to have deposed to an affidavit in court explaining his absence and that of his counsel, Mr Ikpeazu.
“The first defendant has not explained why his counsel was not present on May 25. Based on the facts presented by him, it is not deserving to grant the application. The first defendant on his own denied himself the right to testify in court. ”
Citing a comment made by Mr Metuh while attempting to ensure the invitation of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Mr Abang said Mr Metuh toyed with his right to defend himself.
“The first defendant had said in court that it is only after the former president has given the testimony that he will know whether to testify in court. How can a defendant place a condition on a matter that affected his freedom?”
He added that Mr Metuh’s other lawyer, Emeka Etiaba, should have explained to the court with credible evidence why he was not in court.
“The affidavit must show that the SAN Etiaba or his counsel who failed to appear had substantial reason for being unable to appear in court. There is nothing in the affidavit that explains why he was unable to appear in court. He owes it a duty to explain to the court why he abandoned his client that day.”
He, however, concluded that the court would disregard what he (Abang) described as Mr Metuh’s attempt to frustrate the matter, and accord the defendant an opportunity to defend himself.
“To enable the court examine the matter on its merit, the order of court closing the case is hereby set aside. The first defendant should not deny himself the privilege of defending himself. ”
Consequently, Mr Abang re-opened Mr Metuh’s defence and adjourned the matter to July 4.
The judge however warned that Mr Metuh should not repeat what he regarded as previous episodes in court
“The first defendant shall not plan to fall in the court room, while the matter is taking place. The first defendant shall not come to court on a stretcher. The first defendant should respect himself. The first defendant should stop embarrassing this court. This is not the only criminal matter that I handle. The first defendant should offer his explanation and leave the court alone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment