Court continues trial despite Metuh’s absence

The trial of former spokesperson of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Olisa Metuh before an FCT High Court continued yesterday despite his absence in court.

Metuh was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a threecount charge bordering on wilful obstruction of the antigraft official’s and destruction of evidence, alleging that he tore and attempted to chew a confessional statement he made under caution, while under interrogation.

The anti-graft agency insisted that the said statement would have been vital to prosecution of the criminal case pending against Metuh before the Federal High Court.

At the resumed hearing yesterday, Metuh’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) told the court that his client was absent because he was under admission at the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital in Nnewi, Anambra State. He thereby urged the court to adjourn proceeding pending recovery of the defendant.

EFCC’s counsel, Sylvanus Tahir contended that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in section 262 already made provision for the court to proceed with hearing, where the presence of the defendant has no effect on the court’s business of the day, which he said was the adoption of written addresses for Metuh’s no-case submission.

Ruling in favour of the EFCC, the trial judge, Justice Ishaq Bello held that the ACJA was aimed at fast-tracking trial and ordered counsels to adopt their addresses on the no-case submission.

Adopting his address, Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the case, discharge and acquit the defendant, stating that since the defendant has the constitutional liberty not to make any statement, he cannot then be prosecuted by any other legislation for withdrawing any part of his writing in the cause of making a statement.

However, Tahir contended that having volunteered to make the statement, Metuh committed an offence by tearing parts of the said document. He urged the court to dismiss the nocase submission, and order the defendant to enter his defence to the charge.

Justice Bello thereafter adjourned the matter to March 7 for ruling.