Headlines
N400m Fraud: We’ll Appeal Judgment, Metuh’s Lawyer Vows
The former spokesperson for the Peoples Democratic Party, Olisa Metuh, will appeal his conviction and sentencing handed by the Federal High Court in Abuja Tuesday, his lawyer said.
Mr Metuh was convicted for corruption and sentenced to seven years in jail for illicitly receiving N400 million public funds. Prosecutors charged him with money laundering.
The anti-graft agency, EFCC, had accused Mr Metuh of receiving N400 million from the Office of the National Security Adviser.
The money was paid in the run-up to the 2015 general elections when the PDP was still in power, and formed a part of about $2.1 billion allegedly plundered after being earmarked for defence procurement.
In his judgement, the judge also convicted Mr Metuh for transacting with the cash sum of $2 million without going through a financial institution.
He sentenced Mr Metuh to seven years imprisonment for counts 1, 2, 4 and 7, five years imprisonment in respect of count 3, and three years in respect of counts 5 and 6.
He, however, said the terms shall run concurrently.
Justice Abang also directed Mr Metuh to pay a fine of N375 million to the Federal Government. He also ordered Destra Investments to pay N25m to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The judge also ordered that the accounts of Destra (second defendant) in Diamond Bank and Asset Resource Management to be closed and their proceeds forfeited to the Federal Government.
He also ordered the winding up of Mr Metuh’s company, Destra.
Reacting to the judgement, Mr Metuh’s lawyer, Abel Ozioko, said, “For me, this is a good example of bad judgement.”
“We have our appeal in our hands,” Mr Ozioko added.
Mr Metuh’s lawyer further said he still has confidence in the law court and “We are heading upstairs to the three wise men to know whether he is right or wrong.”
On his part, the lawyer to the second defendant (Metuh’s company) Tochukwu Onwugbufor, said they were disappointed in the judgement.
Mr Onwugbufor said, why they are disappointed is because they thought their defence tool would be utilised in the course of the judgment.
“We thought our defence tool would be useful during the judgement but incidentally the consideration was vested in the evidence of the prosecution,” he said.
According to the senior lawyer, “The judge relied on many evidence of the prosecution to convict the accused, without reference to the evidence of the accused person.
“And we think on that basis, the judgement is unacceptable to us and we intend to go for appeal,” Mr Onwugbufor said.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
