The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission opened its case against the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, Mr Olisa Metuh at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday.
Led in evidence, the first prosecution witness, one Miss Nicole Ararume, told the court that she received two million dollars in 100 dollar bills from him which she took to two bureau the change companies for onward transfer to the Asset and Resources Management account of Mr Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited.
The lawyers to Mr Metuh asked for an adjournment for him to prepare materials required for cross examination but the judge refused to adjourn the cross examination of the prosecution witness on the grounds that there was no cogent reason before the court to do so.
Consequently, a second witness – the owner of a bureau de change company was invited to testify and he corroborated the first witness’s testimony.
He recounted how he received half of the said fund and transferred same to the account of Mr Metuh.
In what has become the usual, Mr Metuh arrived the court premises in the company of prison officials and in handcuffs but this did not deter him from exchanging banters and hugs with friends and relations.
In his earlier attempt to get an adjournment, counsel to Mr Metuh, Oyeachi Ikpeazu, had complained that it had been difficult to adequately prepare for trial as the prison officials have made interaction with his client difficult.
He told the court that the allegations of the witness were serious and there was a need to get the necessary documents to enable him adequately cross examine her.
The counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr Tahir Sylvanus, objected to the application, saying: “It has been known to the defence that trial will commence today, as such, it should have adequately prepared for the case”.
Mr Sylvanus also told the court that he had front loaded all the account details relating to the transaction, as such there was no cogent reason why the hearing should be adjourned.
Again Mr Ikpeazu argued that he could not cross examine a prosecution witness based on its document but the defence would rely on its own generated document to do so.