Dasukigate: Metuh’s Trial Stalled Due to ill-health

The trial of embattled former National
Publicity Secretary of the Peoples
Democratic Party, PDP, Olisa Metuh, slated
for continuation of defence today was
stalled as he was not in court due to ill-
health.
Metuh is standing trial alongside his
company, Destra Investment Limited, on a
7-count charge of fraud to the tune of N400
million pressed against him by the
Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, EFCC, before Justice Okon
Abang of the Federal High Court sitting in
Maitama, Abuja .
After counsels on both sides entered their
appearances, Metuh’s counsel, Onyechi
Ikpeazu, SAN, informed the court that his
client could not make it to court because he
was indisposed.
His words:
“My Lord, due to
health complications,
the first defendant
(Metuh) was rushed to
National Hospital on
Sunday, January 8,
2017. I pleaded with
the Consultants to give
us a medical report to
show to the court but
this was not possible
due to the fact that
the report is to be a
summation of the
reports of five
different Consultants. I
called him (the doctor)
ten minutes ago, but
he became thoroughly
‘abusive’.”
In view of this, Ikpeazu requested that the
matter be adjourned to January 11, 2017,
promising that the report would be made
available at that time.
Counsel to Destra Investment Limited,
Tochukwu Onwugbufor, SAN, supported
Ikpeazu’s application for adjournment.
However, counsel to EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir,
strongly opposed the application describing
the explanation given by the defence as
unreasonable.
Tahir argued that, the date of today’s
proceedings ought to have given the
defence sufficient time to avail the court
with, at least, a sick certificate.
“Explanation given
cannot be taken as
substitute for the
certificate which is the
preserve of a medical
doctor. The
explanation, therefore,
does not constitute a
reasonable
explanation as
envisaged by Section
352(4) of the
Administration of
Criminal Justice Act”,
Tahir argued.

He urged the court to ‘take with a pinch of
salt’ the explanation given by the defence
and to see the absence of the first
defendant (Metuh) as a disregard of the
bail conditions, so that trial could continue
‘in absentia’.
After hearing the arguments of both
counsels, Justice Abang held that,
adjournments were at the discretion of the
court.
He said, “It is not
automatic that the
court must grant
adjournment. It
depends on materials
submitted to the
court.”
Thereafter, Justice Abang adjourned to
January 11, 2017 and ordered the defence
to make necessary reports available.