Home » Headline » Metuh’s handcuffs: Nigerians slam PDP
Metuh’s handcuffs: Nigerians slam PDP
Metuh in Court yesterday

Metuh’s handcuffs: Nigerians slam PDP

Nigerians on social media yesterday slammed the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and others for protesting the decision to bring PDP Spokesperson, Chief Olisa Metuh to court in Handcuffs. The comments were angered that the party chose to discuss handcuffs instead of discussing the offence for which he was brought to court.

One commentator  Babs Adesiyan wrote “How can the PDP protest the  bringing of Metuh in handcuffs?Is there no longer any shame in Nigeria, the party did not even mention the N400million, Shame on them. They would have been happy if he was brought in a Rolls Royce! Another Alphonus Chukwujekwu ” How terrible have we descended, now my people, the Igbos  have joined the fray that their son was handcuffed and Dasuki was not, to be honest, when they were sharing the money did they think of Igbo, Hausa or Yoruba?The issue is not the handcuff, the issue is the impunity of the PDP years. And yet another wrote Agnes Ibiam wrote: “Shame on the political class. Handcuff is too small for a person accused of stealing N400million. Do people even know how much that is and what that can do at IDP camps alone?Meanwhile, Metuh’s trial for alleged fraud and money laundering will begin on Monday at a Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice Okon Abang ruled yesterday. The judge had earlier admitted him to bail at N400million and two sureties with Abuja property.
Metuh, who was on January 15 remanded in Kuje Prison in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) after his arraignment, is to remain in prison until he meets the bail conditions.
Justice Abang also directed that each of the sureties must sign a bond of N200 million.
The judge said the sureties must own houses in Maitama, a highbrow area in the FCT.
Justice Abang said officials of the court must verify the documents of the property submitted by the sureties.
He directed the prosecuting agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to confirm the title documents of the property pledged by the sureties and their addresses.
The judge, in granting the bail, noted that the offences for which the applicant was standing trial were bailable.
He said, under the nation’s criminal justice system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The judge was of the view that the prosecution’s allegation that Metuh tore his statement was not established.
Metuh is charged with breach of public trust, corrupt acquisition of public funds and money laundering.
The commission said, in the charge, that a former Chairman, Board of Trustees (BOT) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief Tony Anenih benefited from the N400million allegedly received by Metuh.
EFCC accused Metuh of receiving the N400m from “an unlawful activity” of the immediate past National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Sambo Dasuki.
The commission said its investigation also revealed that Metuh allegedly transferred $2million through one of his agents, Nneka Nicole Ararume, to Sie Iyenome and Kabiru Ibrahim of Capital Field Investment, an organisation it found not to be a financial institution.
The EFCC was silent on why Metuh allegedly gave Anenih N21,776,000 and for what purpose.
While moving the bail application, Metuh’s lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN) urged the court to admit his client to bail on the ground that the alleged offences were bailable.
He noted that under the Money Laundering Act, where Metuh was charged, the offences which attract a maximum of seven years are not severe as claimed by the prosecution.
Uche denied the prosecution’s argument that Metuh could interfere with investigation.
He said his client will not evade trial as he is a known personality. He urged the court to grant him bail on liberal terms or if possible, on self recognition.
Prosecution lawyer Sylvester Tahir objected to the bail request.
He argued that aside that Metuh could tamper with the course of justice, having allegedly torn his statement; he was yet to provide sufficient material to move the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.
Tahir urged the court to be guided by the additional conditions contained in Section 162(c) (d) & (f) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 before determining the application.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: