By Tobi Soniyi in Abuja
The National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Olisa Metuh, has said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences with which he was charged alongside his company, Destra Investments Limited.
In the no-case submission filed by his team of lawyers led by Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Metuh said the charges as constituted, did not disclose a prima facie case against him.
The National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Olisa Metuh, has said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences with which he was charged alongside his company, Destra Investments Limited.
In the no-case submission filed by his team of lawyers led by Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Metuh said the charges as constituted, did not disclose a prima facie case against him.
Metuh is charged with criminal breach of trust, corruption, money laundering and for allegedly receiving N400million from the Office of the National Security Adviser.
He pleaded not guilty to the offences.
However, after the prosecution closed its case, the PDP publicity scribe was called upon to enter his defence, but he chose to raise a no-case submission. If the no-case submission succeeds, the trial terminates there.
He pleaded not guilty to the offences.
However, after the prosecution closed its case, the PDP publicity scribe was called upon to enter his defence, but he chose to raise a no-case submission. If the no-case submission succeeds, the trial terminates there.
In count one of the seven-count charge, Metuh was charged with taking ‘possession of N400million paid into the account of Destra Investment Limited with Diamond Bank Plc Account No 0040437573 from the account of the ONSA with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) without contract award when he reasonably ought to have known that the said fund formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity.
He was said to have committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2),(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 20111 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
He was said to have committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2),(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 20111 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
Metuh argued that for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case, it must be established that he took possession or control of funds, knowing that such funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act or reasonably ought to have known that such funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act.
According to him, there was no evidence by any witness that at the time the sum of N400million was paid into the account of his company, he was notified directly or indirectly that the said money was paid from the account of ONSA.
According to him, there was no evidence by any witness that at the time the sum of N400million was paid into the account of his company, he was notified directly or indirectly that the said money was paid from the account of ONSA.
He also said the prosecutor failed to provide evidence to show that the defendants were notified by ONSA that money was paid into their account by ONSA for whatever purpose.
Metuh said following a presentation to the then former president, Goodluck Jonathan, on how to shore up the image of the PDP and inexorably Nigeria, he expected payment to execute the presentation but not from the ONSA.
He argued that the idea that he ought to know that the funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act did not arise.
He stated that the EFCC admitted that he had no business dealing with the ONSA, no contract and wondered how the commission expected him to have known that the funds paid to him was for illegal purpose.
He said: “On yet another counter pane, section 15(2)(d) of the Act requires proof that the money must be proceeds of an unlawful act. In this case, it has not been established that the defendants knew that the ONSA engaged in any unlawful act. An unlawful act must be an act which is not authorised or approved and which has been found to be illegal.”
He said the EFCC failed to establishing the unlawfulness of the act in question.
“Put another way, with respect to the issue of no-case submission, that essential element of the offence (which is the unlawfulness of the act) must first be established against the persons who perpetrated it. The prosecution cannot put the cart before the horse, which is what they are doing in this case,” he added. In his response, the prosecutor, Mr. Sylvanus Tahir, disagreed with Metuh.
He said he led an overwhelming evidence against him and expressed surprise that he (Metuh) was raising a no-case submission.
He said EFCC received a complaint from the ONSA that money was paid under the immediate past NSA to individuals and companies without any document supporting such payments and that the commission investigated the petition.
According to him, a charge was filed against Metuh after a prima facie of money laundering was established against him.
He urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and ask the defendants to enter their defence, adding that they had an explanation to make.
The trial judge, Justice Abang Okon, has fixed March 9 for ruling on the no case submission.
Metuh said following a presentation to the then former president, Goodluck Jonathan, on how to shore up the image of the PDP and inexorably Nigeria, he expected payment to execute the presentation but not from the ONSA.
He argued that the idea that he ought to know that the funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act did not arise.
He stated that the EFCC admitted that he had no business dealing with the ONSA, no contract and wondered how the commission expected him to have known that the funds paid to him was for illegal purpose.
He said: “On yet another counter pane, section 15(2)(d) of the Act requires proof that the money must be proceeds of an unlawful act. In this case, it has not been established that the defendants knew that the ONSA engaged in any unlawful act. An unlawful act must be an act which is not authorised or approved and which has been found to be illegal.”
He said the EFCC failed to establishing the unlawfulness of the act in question.
“Put another way, with respect to the issue of no-case submission, that essential element of the offence (which is the unlawfulness of the act) must first be established against the persons who perpetrated it. The prosecution cannot put the cart before the horse, which is what they are doing in this case,” he added. In his response, the prosecutor, Mr. Sylvanus Tahir, disagreed with Metuh.
He said he led an overwhelming evidence against him and expressed surprise that he (Metuh) was raising a no-case submission.
He said EFCC received a complaint from the ONSA that money was paid under the immediate past NSA to individuals and companies without any document supporting such payments and that the commission investigated the petition.
According to him, a charge was filed against Metuh after a prima facie of money laundering was established against him.
He urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and ask the defendants to enter their defence, adding that they had an explanation to make.
The trial judge, Justice Abang Okon, has fixed March 9 for ruling on the no case submission.
0 comments :
Post a Comment