Dasukigate: How Metuh’s company was paid for “security services” — Witness

 metuh

A witness has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the money paid by a former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, to a company owned by the spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Olisa Metuh, was for “security services”.

Mr. Metuh is accused of receiving N400 million from Mr. Dasuki, while he NSA.
Investigators say the money was part of $2.1 billion voted for the purchase of arms to fight Boko Haram, but diverted and shared to politicians and government loyalists.

The claim about “security services” payment to Mr. Metuh’s Dextra Investment Limited, was made by Bali Ndam, a legal adviser in the office of the NSA, responsible for drafting memos, vetting contracts, among others.
Mr. Ndam appeared as the third prosecution witness. The details of the security services were not clear.

Mr. Ndam said the NSA’s office, had in January, transmitted a letter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, giving names of companies it awarded contracts to.
He said the letter included 78 companies and individuals, amongst them, Dextra Investment Limited.
There were however arguments over the communications between the EFCC and the NSA’s office.
Mr. Ndam told the court that the EFCC requested for the payment mandate to the companies, in a letter dated January 13, 2016, signed by Ibrahim M. Musa.

He said a list of e-payment mandate was sent to the EFCC on January 14, and the letter was signed by M. Abdulrahim, a Group Captain.
Mr. Ndam said another letter was written to the EFCC, and was signed by Lieutenant Colonel AA Ibrahim, the special adviser to the NSA.

But responding, Mr. Metuh’s counsel, Onyeachi Ikpeazu, told the court that the witness could not present as evidence, a document authored by another person.
Mr. Ikpeazu also said documents attached to the letter dated January 14, 2016, which were computer-generated, did not meet the provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act.
He told the court that according to sections 84, sub sections (2) and sub section (4), ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c,’ any such document must be certified as true copy.
Mr. Ikpeazu also noted that the title of the document was different from what Mr. Ndam claimed.

He said the name of the document in his possession was “Payment companies with no contract”, while that mentioned by Mr. Ndam was “Payment of contracts without award”
He therefore prayed the court to reject the document.

But in his response, Sylvanus Tahir, prayed the court to discountenance the request made by Mr. Ikpeazu
He said the documents tendered were all public documents, which are all relevant to their arguments.

He added that the duplicate documents which needed certification had all been certified, while the original documents did not need certification.
The Judge, Okon Abang, overruled Mr. Ikpeazu’s objection.
 
He said the documents before the court were correspondents whose nature did not require certification.
He also said the fact that the witness misread the name of the document, did not affect its content.
He ruled that the documents be tagged, exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

0 Comments