Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court has struck out the application of the former National Publicity Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, Olisa Metuh, asking the court to compel former National Security Adviser, NSA, Sambo Dasuki, to testify in his case.

Metuh is accused of allegedly receiving N400 million from Dasuki, out of the $2.1 billion dollars meant for the procurement of arms for the Nigerian Armed Forces.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, claim that Metuh ought to have known that the money he received from Dasuki was proceeds of crime.

The Accused person on his part maintained that he knew nothing of such at the time, adding that the funds he received was sanctioned by then President Goodluck Jonathan.

He therefore asked the court to subpoena Dasuki, who is currently in custody of the Department of State Services, DSS, to come to the court and testify to his (Metuh’s) defence.

But Justice Abang in his ruling on Thursday, held that Metuh’s application lacks merit, adding that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, does not make it mandatory for the court to grant such application.

The judge said that there is no evidence to show that Metuh approached the DSS authority to release Dasuki and was rejected.

“The first defendant cannot come to the court first when he has not approached the DSS,” Abang said.

“The application was not made in good faith because the name of Dasuki was not included in the list of witnesses earlier filed by the defense, the application is an afterthought.”

“It will not serve any useful meaning to subpoena Dasuki because the 1st defendant has exhausted his five adjournments provided for him by the ACJA since April… he will need an adjournment to be able to call a witness as of right”, the judge ruled.

In a similar development, Justice Abang also struck out another application by Metuh seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom for medical purposes.

Counsel to Metuh, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, after the rulings lamented that “the court has not only shown bias, but clear bias against the interest of the first defendant,” adding that “we are not confident that the court will give us justice in this matter.”