4.6 C
New York
Tuesday, February 27, 2024

JUST IN: ‘Story About Petition Against Jonathan At EFCC A Hoax’ – Lawyer Says

Must read

Counsel to Chief Olisa Metuh, erstwhile national publicity secretary of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Barrister Ben Nwosu, on Saturday, May 28, 2016 said that the story, published in The Nation of a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) requesting a probe of former President Goodluck Jonathan to is false and non-existent.

In a statement delivered to The Trent on Saturday, May 28, 2016, Nwosu said the media reports credited to one Barrister Osuagwu Ogochukwu, claiming to be representing a non-existent former member of the Enugu State House of Assembly, one Ikenna Ejezie, and asking the EFCC to invite Jonathan for interrogation in relation to the ongoing trial of Olisa Metuh was untrue.

Nwosu revealed that Barrister Osuagwu was an EFCC lawyer in the days of the former chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde and the claim that the petition is written on behalf of a former member of Enugu State House of Assembly is false, noting that nobody with that name has ever served in the Enugu State legislature.

However, he said the petition – if it is real – after being studied is not against ex-President Goodluck Jonathan but actually calculated to sway public sentiments and the judiciary against the Chief Metuh.

Nwosu presented seven point why the story should be discountenanced as follows:

1. The petition is not really against ex-President Jonathan but actually a calculated attempt targeted at swaying public sentiments and the judiciary against our client in this orchestrated and well-funded media trial. The idea is to sway the minds of the public and the court to get a conviction based more on media trial than the laws of the land.

2. It is clear that their assertion is neither based on the statement our client made at the EFCC nor on the evidence placed before the court, which has clearly established our client’s case that the N400 million approved by the former president was not for personal and private use.

3. The fact that this matter is subjudice should have impressed upon the petitioners and their backers that publicizing such hoax is actually an affront to the judiciary except it is intended to cow the judiciary.

4. We are astonished as to how the petitioners would have referred to our client’s statement as a confession and a criminal statement.

5. We are also not unmindful of the fact that this appears to be a vendetta by some persons to cast our client in the mold of an already guilty individual just waiting for sentencing.

6.It is therefore obvious that the sole intention of this petition is to distort our client’s defense, which has so far been honestly and sincerely presented before the court.

7. Finally, we state that we support the present fight against corruption and which is needed at this time of our national development, however this should not be used by some persons as a ploy to settle personal scores.

More articles

- Advertisement -The Fast Track to Earning Income as a Publisher
- Advertisement -The Fast Track to Earning Income as a Publisher
- Advertisement -Top 20 Blogs Lifestyle

Latest article