The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has subpoenaed former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear before it Wednesday to testify for the former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Olisa Metuh in the seven-count charge of money laundering preferred against him by the Federal Government.Metuh had, on Monday told the trial Judge, Justice Okon Abang that he had slated former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Mohammed Dasuki (retd), who has already been subpoenaed by the court and the former President to testify for him in the trial.
But, the former NSA, Tuesday told the court to discharge him from standing as a defence witness for Metuh, even as. Justice Abang said he has subpoenaed former President, Goodluck Jonathan to testify for Metuh.
He said Jonathan has been ordered to appear before the court October 25, 2017 (Wednesday) to testify for Metuh.
Following the order of the Court of Appeal, Justice Abang had subpoenaed Dasuki to also appear tomorrow to testify for Metuh.
The former NSA and his company, Destra Investments Limited, are standing trial on a seven-count charge of money laundering involving alleged cash transaction of $2 million and fraudulent receipt of N400 million meant for procurement of arms from the Office of the National Security Adviser at a time Dasuki was the NSA.
The Appeal Court sitting in Abuja on September 29 had subpoena Dasuki to appear as a defence witness at the instance of Metuh, but moving against the order, counsel to Dasuki, Ahmed Raji (SAN) on Tuesday, held that Dasuki cannot be compelled to testify in favour of Metuh.
Raji held that Dasuki as an accomplice cannot be made to stand as a witness for a co-accused person and added that Dasuki has remained in detention despite a court ordering his release.
He maintained that he has been unable to have access to him, noting that he is willing to assist the defendant but unable to do so because of the prevailing circumstances.
Raji pleaded with the court to suspend the subpoena execution, pending Dasuki’s release from DSS custody, as the law cannot command what is impossible.
He also pleaded with the court to “bend backwards and grant the application”, and argued further that Dasuki is an accomplice: “His name was mentioned in count one, two, three and four times.
“Being an accomplice, on the face of the law, the question is, is he a competent witness? The answer is ‘no’ and anybody who is in detention or arrested reserved the right to remain silent.
“If an accomplice is compelled to give evidence from detention, the right to remain silent is violated. Col Dasuki is in detention, he is a co-accused, if compelled to give witness, it will make him testify against himself, he may be incriminating himself.
“In conclusion, My Lord, he has not been served personally. In a situation like this, he ought to be served personally. The applicant who requires the appearance of important witness ought to bring the application, ” Raji held.
Ikpeazu urged the court to discountenance Raji’s submission, adding that, the defence had filed a 14-paragraph counter affidavit and a written addresses, arguing that with the high court signing the subpoena, the Judge was merely abiding with the relevant sections of the Constitution and asked the court to dismiss Dasuki’s prayer.
According to Ikpeazu: “In this case, he (Dasuki) is neither the first or second defendant. He merely appears as particular of the offence of the first and second defendants.”
The prosecution counsel, Tahir Sylvanus, who also objected to Dasuki’s motion, in an oral application objected to Dasuki’s motion on four grounds.
On the first ground, he said: “This court is subordinate to the Court of Appeal, It cannot review, vary or set aside a judgment by the Court of Appeal. It will be a judicial anarchy for the court to review the judgment of Court of Appeal and we urged the court to dismiss the objection not to plunge the court into judicial anarchy.
“On the second ground, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is valid and subsistence and has not been appealed against.
“Thirdly, the applicant herein not being a party in the proceedings cannot apply to set aside a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court cannot undo an act that has been done. This honourable court cannot embark on a journey on an act that has been carried out. The court cannot suspend a completed action as contained in Section 282 of the Constitution of 1999 as amended.”
Concluding, Tahir said Dasuki’s application was, “dead on arrival, what is left to give it is a burial ground.”
Justice Abang in adjourning the case until today said there was a need to reserve ruling to another date to allow the court go through authorities cited by counsel.
Abang had earlier said he received Metuh’s application for a subpoena to be issued on Jonathan at about 3.59pm on Monday, saying, “Indeed, at the close of business yesterday being October 23, 2017, precisely at about 3.59pm, the registrar forwarded to the court in chamber a subpoena to compel former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear in court to testify a the instance of the first defendant (Metuh).
“Therefore, in line with section 241(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and having regard to the subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal in the appeal CA/A/159C/2017, between Olisa Metuh and the Federal Republic of Nigeria dated September 29, 2017 to the effect that it will be tantamount to violating the right of the first defendant to fair hearing not to sign the subpoena.
“I have no option other than to sign a subpoena to compel former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear in court on October 25, 2017 (Wednesday) to give evidence at the instance of the first defendant.”
and then