Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja,
on Wednesday struck out the application by the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Mohammed Dasuki (retd) seeking to be discharged as a defence witness in the trial of former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Olisa Metuh.
The former PDP spokesman 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 Dasuki when he was the NSA.
The court had on Tuesday adjourned till yesterday at the instance of the first defendant (Metuh) for the subpoenaed witnesses, Dasuki and former President Goodluck Jonathan to be in court to testify for the former PDP spokesman.
Dasuki had, through his counsel, Ahmed Raji (SAN) asked the court to vacate the subpoena issued to him to appear in court to testify for Metuh, until he is released from detention by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Raji had argued on Tuesday that Dasuki cannot be compelled to testify in favour of Metuh, adding that, as an accomplice, Dasuki cannot be made to stand as a witness for a co-accused person.
The senior counsel pleaded with the court to suspend the subpoena execution, pending Dasuki’s release from DSS custody, as the law cannot command what is impossible.
In a short ruling, Justice Abang, struck out Dasuki’s application seeking vacation of the subpoena on him for been incompetent and lacking in merit.
The Judge said the high court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain or review the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal.
According to Justice Abang, “From the argument of the applicant (Dasuki), it seems he is dissatisfied with the judgment of Court of Appeal if this is so, he knows where to go, what to do, certainly not to come before this court.
“This is a legal impossibility. This court has no jurisdiction. I agreed with the prosecution counsel who said it will be a judicial anarchy.
“This court is bound to follow the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal.
“Again, the applicant is not a party to this matter in the first instance. I have no jurisdiction to entertain the application on its merit.
“There is no life in the application. It is incompetent and accordingly struck out”, ” the court held.
Meanwhile, former President Goodluck Jonathan was not in court yesterday to testify for Metuh as he was yet to be served with the subpoena issued by the court.
Justice Abang said it was Metuh that applied to compel Dasuki and the former President to appear in court to testify for him and added that, it is not the court that ordered them to appear to give evidence on the matter.
He said, “I did not, on my own compel Dasuki and the former President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan to give evidence in this matter. It is the first defendant that applied for that and not the court.”
The Judge said there is a proof that the subpoena has been served on the DSS to produce Dasuki in court yesterday to give evidence but the former NSA was not released to do so by the DSS and no reason has been given for that.
While Justice Abang held that the issue will be resolved administratively, he also asked the prosecution counsel to advice the Federal Government to produce Dasuki in court to testify as he is being held in the custody of the DSS, which is an agency of the Federal Government.
“As for former President Jonathan, he has not been served and as such, cannot be blamed for not being in court”, Justice Abang held and ordered the bailiff of the court to make extra efforts to effect personal service of the subpoena on former President Jonathan.
The court then gave five days from yesterday for the bailiff to effect service on Jonathan, for the law to take its course and added that, if personal service became impossible, Metuh can apply to the court for him (Jonathan) to be served the court document through substituted means.
The matter was adjourned till October 31, 2017, for Dasuki and former President Jonathan to give evidence at the instance of the first defendant.