This is a press statement released by Barr. Ben Chuks Nwosu, Counsel to Chief Olisa Metuh. The statement reads:
Our
attention has been drawn to a misleading report in a section of the
media suggesting that the Fifth Defence Witness in the case involving
our client, Chief Olisa Metuh, told the court that money was paid to
media houses or their representatives from the controversial N400
million to launder the image of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
This
report is highly embarrassing and does not in anyway reflect the
testimony and evidence of the Fifth Defence witness, Mr. Richard Ihediwa
in the court.
What
the witness told the court was that the sum paid into his account by
Chief Metuh, who was National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) at the time was for payments for sundry
advertorials placed by Chief Metuh in various media houses.
The
witness had earlier laid a proper foundation that media advertorials
from the PDP are placed and paid for by the National Publicity
Secretary, mostly in cash or through bank transfers to the media house
through their representatives covering the party.
The
witness, who is Special Assistant to our client, stated directly and
clearly that all the payments to the media were for advertorials, and
that paying through representatives of the media houses was the normal
practice in the media industry. He went ahead to present documents
including bank tellers to justify the payments. The records of the court
are clear in this regard.
Furthermore,
when questioned under-cross examination regarding the appearance of
names of some journalists in the payment tellers, the witness stated
clearly that the payments were for advertorial placed in their
respective media houses and showed documents to justify the payments in
line with the practice in the media industry.
At no
point throughout his testimony did the witness tell the court that any
media house or any representative/staff of any media house was paid in
whatever form to launder the image of the former President as suggested
in the misleading report.
We
find this particularly painful for the fact that since the arrest and
arraignment of our client, he had never attempted in anyway to drag in
any individual and/or organization in connection with his travail.
Finally,
while urging reporters covering the court to ensure accurate reportage
of events and proceedings, we regret the embarrassment the unfortunate
report must have caused the respective media houses or persons mentioned
in the said misleading reports.