In another dramatic episode of the court case against the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is accusing him of trying to frustrate the agency by making up baseless accusations.

This was stated in an affidavit filed before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja by the anti-graft agency.

It would be recalled that the PDP spokesperson is on trial for misappropriation of N400 million which is believed to be part of the money intended for the purchase of military equipment to fight Boko Haram insurgents.

Earlier in his trial, Metuh had accused the trial judge, Justice Abang, of being unfair and biased in his rulings.

He had prayed the Chief Judge of the High Court to remove Justice Abang as the presiding judge because he and Abang were classmates.

The EFCC in the affidavit stated that: “All manner of allegations, as stated by the defendants, were cooked up by them just to justify frustrating the stalling of proceedings. We submit that the antics and gimmicks deployed by the defendants are nothing but mere afterthought and pure blackmail aimed at intimidating the court to drop the case in the guise or pretext of bias by the judge.”

“The allegations of bias levelled by the defendants against the court relate merely to the exercise of judicial powers by the court, without any evidence of facts or circumstances that suggest that the court did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.”

“In the circumstances of this case, even if the judge and the 1st defendant (Metuh) were classmates, one would have thought that relationship would have given more concern to the prosecution than the defence for obvious reasons. The prosecution would have been the one to entertain fear that the court may favour its classmate.”

“The 1st defendant suddenly woke up when it is time to open his defence to remember an alleged ‘frosty relationship’ that had existed over the years. This is blackmail of unprecedented proportion, which cannot be a ground to disqualify his lordship (the judge).”

“Other tendentious and mundane allegations of bias remain unsubstantiated and unproven. Even the normal practice of a litigant (either in civil or criminal cases) standing either in the dock or witness box until his counsel draws the attention of the judge, with an oral request for the litigant to sit down, which is acceded to by the court, has become an issue of bias.”

“Another germane issue on the allegation of bias is that the test of real likelihood of bias is that of a reasonable man, not that of a man, who has made up his mind to pull down the institution of justice in a desperate bid to undermine the judicial process and get off the hook by all means.”

The anti-graft agency prayed the court to disregard Metuh’s petition.

“That it will not serve the interest of justice to grant the defendants/applicants’ (Metuh and his firm, Destra Investment Limited) application which will entail commencing trial de novo (afresh) with all the expenses and the difficulty of procuring prosecution witnesses, some of whom have been harassed out of the country, with some receiving threats for having the courage to have testified in the court.”