Former President Goodluck Jonathan does need to serve as a witness in the money laundering case against the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, Olisa Metuh.

According to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the case against Metuh can be proven without the help of Jonathan.

The EFCC stated this while opposing the no-case submission filed by Metuh before Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court in Abuja.

Metuh and his company, Destra Investments Limited, are being prosecuted by the EFCC on seven counts fraud.

The PDP spokesperson is alleged to have fraudulently received N400m meant for the procurement of arms and money laundering involving $2m cash transaction, from the Office of the National Security Adviser in November.

On Tuesday, February 23, the anti-graft agency urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission, insisting that Jonathan was not needed to prove its case.

The lead prosecuting counsel of the EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir, urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission filed by Metuh and his firm and compel them to explain “the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution.”

“My Lord, in paragraphs 2.22 to 2.25, the defence also contends that the prosecution, through PW8 (EFCC’s investigative officer, Junaid Sa’id) failed to investigate the statement of the 1st defendant (Metuh) to the effect that presentation was made to Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and that the sum for the exercise was paid into the 2nd defendant’s account (Metuh’s firm, Destra).

“It is further contended that the former President, to whom the presentation was made for which the payment was made, is therefore a material and indispensable person in order for a prima facie case to be established.

“Learned senior counsel (Metuh’s lawyer) therefore alleged presumption of withholding of evidence by the prosecution.

“In response to the above argument my lord, we submit that nothing can be farther from the truth. The defence cannot pick and choose witnesses for the prosecution and as rightly pointed out by the defence, the prosecution is not required to call a host of witnesses or a particular witness in proof of its case.

“What the law requires the prosecution to do is to call material witness(es) in proof of its case.”

“Your Lordship is further urged to dismiss or discountenance the no-case submission and call upon the defendants to enter their defence.”

Kolapo Olapoju