Dasuki says he can’t recall his dealings with Metuh

Former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki, told a Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday that he could not recall his dealings with ex-spokesman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh while in office.
Dasuki, who admitted knowing Metuh as the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, also said he could not recall off hand whether or not N400m was paid to Metuh through his company, Destra Investment.
The ex-NSA said he could not confirm, without access to his personal records, the nature of the relationship that existed between his office, Metuh and Destra.
Dasuki spoke in Abuja yesterday while testifying as the 8th witness of the 1st defendant in the on-going trial of Metuh and his Destra Investment.
Metuh is being tried with Destra on a seven-count charge of money laundering involving the alleged cash transaction of $2 million and unlawful receipt of N400m from the Office of the NSA.
Led in evidence by Metuh’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Dasuki was asked if he knew what it meant to say due process was followed as contained in the document reflecting the payment of N400m to the defendants, he said he understood the statement to imply that all laid-down procedures were complied with.
Dasuki said he had never been charged or convicted in relation to his activities while in office, except in the court of public opinion.
He added: “I say no. I have not been charged or convicted of any unlawful act with respect to the 1st defendant”.
On who took directives from, he said as the NSA, he was answerable to the President who by then was Goodluck Jonathan.
Under cross-examination by the prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, Dasuki still insisted he needed to consult his records before he could recall details of his relationship with the defendants.
When asked to recall some duties of his office as the NSA and whether the office was meant for only people with military background, he said: “Maybe you can ask the President who appointed me: what he was looking for in an NSA when he appointed me.
“I will leave you with your understanding that the Office of the NSA is meant for only people with military training or background.
“However, so far, I believe Dr. Bukar Shuaibu and Professor. Galadanji were the only people that did not have military or security background before occupying the Office of the NSA.”
When asked to provide the job description of the NSA, he said: “It has responsibility as regards issues of security, but for the details, I will refer you to the National Security Agencies Act.
“The NSA, to the best of my knowledge, is a public officer.”
Dasuki said he did not know if the Office of the NSA has any affiliation with any political party.
On whether he met Metuh while in office, Dasuki said: “I know Chief Olisa Metuh as a person. I know he was the Publicity Secretary of the PDP which was the party in government that I served proudly.
“I don’t personally know the 2nd defendant, but as to whether I knew it officially, I have to make reference to my record.
“I am not aware of the relationship or transaction that existed between the defendants and the ONSA. Not without record, I cannot remember.”
At a point, Tahir asked that Dasuki be given when confronted with a document earlier tendered in court, marked exhibit B, to which an e-payment mandate for N400m allegedly paid to Metuh through his company’s Diamond Bank Plc account was attached.
The payment mandate, said to have been authorised on November 24, 2014, was alleged to be payment for security services.
When asked to confirm the document, Dasuki said  the document emanated from the prosecution who, he claimed, was “desperate to get a conviction”.
The ex-NSA added: “That is why I insist on getting and referring to my own records. This is not the original document; it is a photocopy”.
Tahir later asked Dasuki to tell the court the services rendered by the defendant to warrant the payment of N400m to them. Dasuki said: “I have nothing to say. If you want an answer, then I should have access to my records.
“It will be useful for the counsel to get himself acquainted with the National Security Agencies Act.”
Again, Tahir showed him another document, showing the transfer of funds from the Office of NSA to Metuh’s company and asked to confirm the transaction.
Dasuki, in response, said: “I have seen that there was an entry that purports to be payment from the ONSA, in the form of N400m, into the account of Destra Investment Ltd”.
Tahir then asked: “Would it surprise you to know that the 1st defendant, who is the sole signatory of the 2nd defendant, said the 2nd defendant has never executed any contract with any government, ministry or agency?”
Lawyer to Destra, Tochukwu Onwugbufor ( SAN), raised an objection to the question before Dasuki could respond.
The lawyer argued that it was wrong for Tahir to ask the witness questions based on false information.
Tahir later withdrew the question and asked Dasuki to confirm that he was also facing a trial in separate charges for his actions while in office, which he did.
At the conclusion of the cross-examination, the trial judge, Justice Okon Abang asked Dasuki to step down from the witness box.
Following a request by Ikpeazu that he required  time to review the effort of the bailiff to effect service of the subpoena issued on ex-President Jonathan, the judge adjourned to December 4 for further proceedings.
In a ruling delivered before Dasuki’s testimony, Justice Abang declined the request by the defence for an adjournment to enable Dasuki consult his records to enable him recall all that transpired between him and the defendants while he was in office.
The judge said it was for Metuh’s lawyer to use his professional skill to ask Dasuki relevant questions that would elicit answers favourable to the case of his client.
Justice Abang said he observed Dasuki’s demeanour in the witness box, and the witness appeared to the court as a very “composed and relaxed” witness.
He said Metuh’s lawyer was free to ask the witness questions based on the evidence already tendered before the court, and that Dasuki’s answers would eventually constitute his testimony in the trial.
The judge said Dasuki could elect not to answer questions posed to him as he would be cross-examined by the prosecution counsel based on his testimony with respect to the charge against the defendants.
He said: “It is my humble view that there are sufficient materials already in evidence to enable counsel to ask relevant questions to elicit favourable answer from the witness.
“The witness is no longer the NSA. Therefore, his personal documents cannot be relevant to this proceeding,” Justice Abang said.
The judge said Metuh’s lawyer ought  to have sought any document that would enhance his case from the Office of the NSA before he requested Dasuki’s appearance as a witness in the case.
He said the claim that Dasuki was still being kept in the custody of the DSS, having been allegedly granted bail by different trial courts, was not relevant to the proceedings before his court.
The judge added that “the fact that the witness is in custody of the state has nothing to do with the ability of the counsel to 1st defendant to ask questions that will elicit relevant answers.
“What is relevant is the ability of the counsel to the 1st defendant to elicit relevant evidence from the witness to enhance the success of his case.
“The detention of the witness in custody of the state is not relevant,” he said.
The judge added that the duty of a witness was to give answers to questions asked by the examiner and not to give conditions that must be met before he could answer the questions.
|The Nation