Metuhgate: Jonathan ask Metuh to deposit N1bn expenses




Former President Goodluck Jonathan on Monday asked the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to set aside the subpoena ordering him to appear in court as a witness to testify in defence of a former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP, Olisa Metuh.

Jonathan in the application asked the court for an order to set aside the issuance and service of the ‘subpoena ad testifiandum’ issued on October 23 for the purpose of his appearance in court and give evidence in the proceeding in charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/05/2016.

In the alternative, the Former President sought an order directing Metuh to deposit with the court for and on his behalf the sum of N1bn to cover travelling expenses for himself and his security personnel from his home town, Otuoke, in Bayelsa State, to Abuja.

The money, according to the former President is also to cover the time that he might spend appearing before the court as President of Nigeria between 2010 and 2015, contending that his request was in line with the provisions of Section 241 ( 2 ) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Mike Ozekhome SAN, Jonathan’s counsel who filed the application particularly wants the court to void the subpoena issued on him.

In his ground of application, Ozekhome submitted that the evidence sought to be obtained from the applicant will amount to an invasion of his personal right to privacy and family life as provided for in Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

In addition, he submitted that the evidence sought to be obtained from the applicant is likely to expose the applicant to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture, arguing that the subpoena is vague and applied for and obtained of frivolous grounds and in bad faith as it was meant to embarrass the person of the applicant.

Jonathan contended that Metuh was not a personal aid or appointee of the applicant herein and so could not have dealt with the President directly under any circumstance to warrant the invitation of the applicant to testify in the charge.

He argued that there is no nexus between the applicant and Metuh and the charge for which Metuh is standing trial.



By Terhemen Abua.
Culled from

You can share this