The name of the former President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, is slowly but steadily being dragged into the $2.1bn arms scandal.

At the resumption of trial of Olisa Metuh, PDP spokesman, at the FCT High Court, government witnesses told the court that Metuh tore the statement he voluntarily made to the EFCC because he felt he had revealed to much and in the process, dragged the name of the former President into the arms deal saga.

Metuh, who is standing trial before the FCT High Court, was slammed with a three count charge of obstructing justice and destruction of government property.

Recall that Olisa Metuh was arrested by the EFCC on Tuesday January 5, following allegations that he received N1.4bn meant for the purchase of arms. During interrogation, Metuh was alleged to have torn his confessional statement, following which he was charged to court for destruction of government property.

Source.....http://lazyreporta.com/1768-2/

.

Gobe is coming

We are now AWAKE and on top of the WATCHTOWER

Buhari, Apc, DSS, EFCC and the federal are all useless. Why dont buhari arrest GEJ if he's not afraid. Hopel.e.s.s, f.o*oli.sh, shameless and stupid buhari.

You wish

Just imagine. You are interrogating a suspect on paper? What happens to recording during the interrogation at least it will capture the moment of tearing of the statement. What happens to CCTV cameras? I have noticed that the strength of most of the prosecution's cases lie in the confessional statement of the accused person without which the prosecution finds it real hard to secure conviction. Even the testimony of the witness looks like an extract from the nollywood movies. Okay he made a written statement on four pages of your statement form and tore the third page which means you still have pages 1,2 and 4 and I want to believe that page 3 is a continuation of page 2 and page 4 is a continuation of page 3 and then with page 2 and 4 you cannot show that page 3 is missing I think there is a disconnect somewhere.

From what am seeing here there is not enough evidence to secure conviction on the corruption charges and by securing conviction on the charge of destruction of evidence, the conviction will now serve as the missing evidence to sustain the charge on corruption.

I think what makes the case of prosecution is the investigation stage when according to the witness
( “When I was handing over the statement, the defendant said he
was surprised that he had written that much and that he felt he
had given too much information.
“Because of the comment, I was worried; I gave him the
statement sheets one after the other for endorsement. He
endorsed the first and second sheet, but he tore the third
sheet.) that should have kept your instinct alive and alert. I think there is a gap somewhere

Lol...... Abeg make una leav oga alone ooo