Justice Okon Abang of Federal High Court, Abuja division on Wednesday dismissed fresh moves by Olisa Metuh, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP national publicity secretary being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on seven-count charge of corruption and criminal breach of trust.
Tochukwu Onwugbufor, counsel to the second defendant in the trial, Destra Investment, a company owned and controlled by Metuh had at the resumption of trial informed the court that he had filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the count one and two of the charges against his client.
He urged the court to hear the application first before proceeding with the trial. “There was a matter contained in charge one and two which was not mentioned in section 251(1) of 1999 Constitution and that matter is contract award. The issue of whether you award a contract is not mentioned in the constitution. The court is bound to determine the issue of jurisdiction one way or the other to proceed,” he urged.
He also dismissed the argument of the prosecution counsel that such objections, according to section 396(2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA can only be heard and determined at the end of trial along with substantive case. The lawyer also argued that the constitution is superior to any other constitution, including the ACJA.
He argued that the provision only related to when the complaint is that the charge is imperfect.
“Our objection is on jurisdiction and not on an imperfect charge,” said Onwgbufor who was supported by counsel Onyeachi Ikpeazu, counsel to the first defendant.
However in his ruling, Justice Abang noted that the trial was adjourned at the instance of the second defendant for cross examination of the second defence witness.
The judge also said the ACJA which was an existing law made pursuant to the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria guides proceedings in criminal trial such as the being faced by the second respondent. He noted by provision of section 396 (2) of ACJA all objections during trial shall be resolved at the end of the proceedings when judgement is delivered.
The judge also noted that none of the party in court cited any provision that section 396 (2) is in conflict with.
“Objections should be heard at the end of the proceedings and rulings delivered at the time of delivery of judgment,” the Judge said as he ordered the Registrar to call the first defence witness for cross examination by the second defendant counsel.
But Onwugbufor did not give up as he asked the court for more clarification on when his objection will be heard. Again, Justice Abang said the court had already ruled that the motion will be heard at the end of the trial.
When Onwugbufor will not budge, he called on Sylvester Tahir, the Prosecution counsel to advise the court on the way forward.
The prosecution counsel advised the court to discharge the witness if the counsel to the second defendant was not ready to cross examine him.
But the first defence counsel said the issue of discharge of the witness can only come up if the lawyer to the second defendant said he will not cross examine him.
Seeing that he may lose that opportunity, Onwugbufor also said he has not indicated that the will not cross examine the witness: “I have only sought clarification and it is for the court to refuse to clarify or clarify. I am ready to go on, I only ask for clarifications.”
Justice Abang said since he has already delivered ruling on the date the motion will be heard, he cannot go back on it. “The issue decided by the court cannot be revisited by the Court. The second defendant counsel is at liberty to cross examine the defence witness now,” at whIch point Onwugbufor stood up to begin the cross examination of the witness.
