Additional vehicles and a house purchased in the name of Mr. Metku’s son, who was the former National Disaster Risk Management Commissioner, were found.
The police explained to the court that they found a sipio in which 8 million 300 thousand birr was paid to Enyi Real Estate.
Yasu Metku, who was arrested along with his father Mr. Metku Kasa, who was the National Disaster Risk Management Commissioner, on suspicion of using money obtained from crime and corruption, has been separately brought to court for the 3rd time today.
The police mentioned that there is evidence that the suspect Yasue Methu, who was presented at the Arada Division of the Federal High Court, received 15,000 birr per month from Elshadai Company for rent of 900,000 birr and two vehicles purchased in his name.
The investigating police revealed to the court the results of the investigation that the suspect had done during the 10-day investigation period that was separated from his father’s record.
As a result, in addition to the two vehicles purchased in the name of the suspect, two other vehicles were found in the name of the suspect, according to the investigative police.
Also, the police, who stated that one more house was bought in his name, explained to the court that he had received a CPIO of 8 million 300 shillings paid to Enyi Real Estate.
Investigating police also explained that they found evidence that the suspect bought furniture from importers.
The investigating officer, who stated that he had received two witness statements against the suspect, hastened to write a letter to the driver and the vehicle authority to gather evidence.
He explained that he wrote a letter to the commercial bank to allow him to gather evidence and that he is waiting for the result and that the work of accepting the statements of five witnesses remains.
On the side of the court, however, the police were asked why they had not yet accepted the statements of five witnesses during the previous investigation, and they answered that they could not accept the statements of the witnesses because they were in different places and were not present at their addresses.
On the other hand, the suspect’s lawyers stated that the 24-day period given to the police until now was sufficient to investigate the issue of whether or not our client’s alleged use of money obtained from crime was related to the crime of corruption.
The lawyers raised an argument saying that the police had found evidence of the purchase of goods other than the investigation that was given in the previous appointment.
The judges who looked at the record pointed out that the police can collect and present more evidence during the scheduled investigation.
On the part of the lawyers, it was suggested that keeping our client’s father in custody would lead to a moral question during the process in which his wife was being prepared for childbirth.
The lawyers argued that there is no way that our client can interfere with the evidence collected from the institution.
In this situation, the suspect was arrested and the additional time requested by the police should not be allowed, they said.
In addition, the lawyers stated that the alleged crime does not preclude bail and asked the court to allow their client to continue the investigation on bail.