The
Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgments in two appeals by spokesman of
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh and Biafra agitator, Nnamdi
Kanu.
A
three-man panel, led by Justice Abdul Aboki, told parties after they adopted
their briefs of argument yesterday, that the judgment dates would be
communicated to them.
Metuh
and his company, Destra Investment Limited, are appealing the ruling by Justice
Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in which the judge refused their
no-case submission and ordered them to enter defence in their trial for alleged
money laundering and unlawful receipt of funds from the Office of the National
Security Adviser (ONSA).
Kanu
is appealing the ruling of Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court,
Abuja) in which the judge agreed to the prosecution’s request to shield its
witnesses in Kanu and two others’ trial on treasonable felony charge.
Metuh
and his company are being tried on a seven-count charge. At the completion of
the prosecution’s case earlier this year, having called eight witnesses, the
court called on the defence to open its case.
Rather
than conducting their defence, Metuh and Destra made a no-case submission,
which Justice Abang rejected.
The
judge believed that the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the court to call on them to
enter defence.
On
his part, Kanu and two of his associates, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu,
are being tried before the court on six-count charge of treasonable felony,
illegal possession of firearms, and managing an unlawful society.
Kanu
is contending in his appeal that Justice Tsoho’s March 7 decision, which varied
the court’s position not to allow the masking of prosecution witnesses, was
given without jurisdiction. The judge, on February 19, refused prosecution’s
motion for witness protection.
Yesterday,
Metuh’s lawyer Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and lawyer to his company, Tochukwu
Onwugbufor (SAN) faulted Justice Abang’s reasoning in rejecting their clients’
no-case submission.
They
urged the court to set aside Justice Abang’s decision, uphold their clients’
no-case submission and quash the charges against them.
Responding,
lawyer to the Federal Government Sylvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss the
Appeal for lacking in merit and for being defective.
Tahir
noted that the appeal being an interlocutory one, the appellants were required
under the law, to obtain leave of the trial court.
He
argued that having not fulfilled the condition precedent, the appellants cannot
claim to have a valid appeal.
Tags
Politics