An FCT High Court yesterday adjourned a former Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, spokesman’s case, Olisa Metuh, till Novemeber 22.
Justice Ishaq Bello adjourned the case after prosecuting counsel, Mr. Sylvanus Tahir closed his case.
Metuh was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a two-count charge of destruction of evidence.
At the resumed hearing, Metuh’s Counsel, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, cross-examined the prosecution witness, Mr. Saed Junaid, an officer of EFCC, who investigated the matter.
Junaid told the court that he wrote the cautionary word, not the statement, because the defendant could write, but admitted that the third page of the statements did not bear the signature of Metuh.
He further told the court that the reading by the team members was to make sure that what was in the statement addressed the issues raised in the matter.
The witness said the defendant had the right to cancel immediwhat he had written, but he tore the third page and I told him to stop.
The second prosecution witness, Mr. Ibrahim Miringa, leader of the investigation team told the court that when the matter got to EFCC sometime in November 2015, it was assigned to his team.
Miringa said that it was reported that some money was paid to some companies without contractual agreement or approval from the office of the National Security Adviser.
He told the court that among the companies was Destra Investment Ltd., which upon investigation was found to be Metuh’s company.
The witness further told the court that this company received N400m on November 24, 2014; he was invited on January 5.
“The team interviewed him in respect of the case after which I instructed Saed to give the defendant the EFCC statement forms for the him to put all that was discussed in writing.”
He said that Juniad carried out the instruction; he guided the defendant before he commenced his writing.
“While I was going through the papers I heard him lamenting ‘why did I give so much repeatedly’ after I went through the papers, I instructed Juniad not to give the defendant all the papers to endorse at once.”
He said after endorsing two statement forms, he tore the third and said they should wait for his lawyer to come before he could make further statements.
Juniad, when cross examined by Ikpeazu, told the court that cancellation and mutilation were not allowed in the statement.
He said that this guideline was important but it was not written rather it was verbal.
News
Justice Ishaq Bello adjourned the case after prosecuting counsel, Mr. Sylvanus Tahir closed his case.
Metuh was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a two-count charge of destruction of evidence.
 |
| Olisah Metuh |
At the resumed hearing, Metuh’s Counsel, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, cross-examined the prosecution witness, Mr. Saed Junaid, an officer of EFCC, who investigated the matter.
Junaid told the court that he wrote the cautionary word, not the statement, because the defendant could write, but admitted that the third page of the statements did not bear the signature of Metuh.
He further told the court that the reading by the team members was to make sure that what was in the statement addressed the issues raised in the matter.
The witness said the defendant had the right to cancel immediwhat he had written, but he tore the third page and I told him to stop.
The second prosecution witness, Mr. Ibrahim Miringa, leader of the investigation team told the court that when the matter got to EFCC sometime in November 2015, it was assigned to his team.
Miringa said that it was reported that some money was paid to some companies without contractual agreement or approval from the office of the National Security Adviser.
He told the court that among the companies was Destra Investment Ltd., which upon investigation was found to be Metuh’s company.
The witness further told the court that this company received N400m on November 24, 2014; he was invited on January 5.
“The team interviewed him in respect of the case after which I instructed Saed to give the defendant the EFCC statement forms for the him to put all that was discussed in writing.”
He said that Juniad carried out the instruction; he guided the defendant before he commenced his writing.
“While I was going through the papers I heard him lamenting ‘why did I give so much repeatedly’ after I went through the papers, I instructed Juniad not to give the defendant all the papers to endorse at once.”
He said after endorsing two statement forms, he tore the third and said they should wait for his lawyer to come before he could make further statements.
Juniad, when cross examined by Ikpeazu, told the court that cancellation and mutilation were not allowed in the statement.
He said that this guideline was important but it was not written rather it was verbal.
News
Comments