Kidnap or Blackmail: 53yrs Grandma in Rape Saga
Posted on 26th Apr 2013
…As Uduaghan Rejects anti-kidnap law, says “death sentence had never reduced crime.”
…Uduaghan doesn’t have that power – Barr. Ogedegbe
Author: By Omafume Amurun
The Joint Task Force(Operation Pulo Shield) Effurun at the weekend, paraded two young men alleged to have kidnapped and raped a 53-year-old grandmother and a top official of the Petroleum Training Institute, (PTI), Effurun, (names withheld)
The suspects, Tadafe Egwolor and Kelvin Uvwie, both 25 years old, who hail from Effurun, also raped their victim at a popular hotel along Refinery road, before demanding N10million ransom for her to be released.
The Commanding officer, 3 battalion Effurun, Lt. Col Ifeanyi Otu told Journalists that the boys were arrested by the troops of Sector 1 Command of JTF in Effurun, following a distress call by the victim.
The grandmother of two children claimed she was abducted at PTI Junction on Tuesday last week by the hoodlums, who later whisked her to Room 602 in the hotel, where she was serially raped by the suspects.
They also took snapshots of the nefarious act. They later freed her to enable her source for the N10 million to save her life and prevent the pictures from being made public. They threatened to kill her if she failed to produce the money within one week.
The authorities of the JTF asked the woman to play along with the hoodlums when she reported her case at the military formation. They were subsequently apprehended when they came for the ransom at PTI Junction on Tuesday.
However, in an interview with Journalists, one of the boys, Mr. Tadafe Egwolor, claimed that the grandma was his sugar mama and who seduced him with the promise of financial support. He said when the woman refused to provide enough money for him, he decided to resort to blackmail to get more money from the woman. He claimed further that the hotel room in which the act was committed was paid for by the grandma.
In his words: “I have been dating her for eight months, then I was wearing dreadlocks. When I visited the PTI, she saw me and said I was handsome and that she worked as a secretary with the PTI.
Meanwhile, the seemingly cordial relationship between Delta State Governor, Dr Emmanuel Uduaghan and members of Delta State House of Assembly is now threatened, as the House have unanimously passed the anti-kidnap bill into law, thereby overriding the refusal of the Governor to assent to the bill.
At the sitting last week, 26 of the 29 members of the assembly voted to override the Governor, which has automatically made the bill a law. The lawmakers predicated their actions on Section 100, sub-section 5 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which gives them the power to override the governor.
After passing the bill into law, Speaker of the Assembly, Hon. Victor Ochei, directed the Clerk of the House, Mrs. Lyna Ocholor, to urgently enroll the law into the state judiciary, as it has become a law of Delta State with effect from Wednesday, April 17, 2013. The bill, known as “Law to Prohibit Terrorism, Kidnapping, Hostage-taking, Cultism, Use of Bombs and Explosives and Other Matters thereto”, was unanimously passed by the 28 members of the Assembly late last year. The bill was initially passed in 2009, but the Governor refused to assent to it.
After passing the bill into law, Speaker of the Assembly, Hon. Victor Ochei, directed the Clerk of the House, Mrs. Lyna Ocholor, to urgently enroll the law into the state judiciary, as it has become a law of Delta State with effect from Wednesday, April 17, 2013. The bill, known as “Law to Prohibit Terrorism, Kidnapping, Hostage-taking, Cultism, Use of Bombs and Explosives and Other Matters thereto”, was unanimously passed by the 28 members of the Assembly late last year. The bill was initially passed in 2009, but the Governor refused to assent to it.
Also, under the bill, any traditional ruler in the state in whose domain hostages are held will be deposed or his kingship withdrawn. Also, a telecommunications company, which refuses to make available to security agencies, within 24 hours of request, information on the communication made by a suspected kidnapper or terrorist, will pay a fine of N20 million for every request not granted.
Other highlights of the bill are that; the governor or his authorised representative shall have power to sign an order sealing up premises used to harbour persons kidnapped or held hostage, with or without the demand of ransom. The bill further states that the sealing of the premises shall remain in place until a competent court decides on the forfeiture.
Other highlights of the bill are that; the governor or his authorised representative shall have power to sign an order sealing up premises used to harbour persons kidnapped or held hostage, with or without the demand of ransom. The bill further states that the sealing of the premises shall remain in place until a competent court decides on the forfeiture.
It is an offence under the Act, for a person, who, not being a member of the armed forces, unlawfully receives or has in his possession, bombs and other explosives with intent to cause harm. Such a person is liable, on conviction, to 14 years imprisonment. The same goes for those that manufacture the explosives. It also forbids a person or group of persons from threatening the life of anybody through letters, phone calls or other electronic methods and gadgets, as any person found guilty is liable, upon conviction, to 14 years imprisonment.
For person in authority who receives information on operations of kidnappers and terrorists and fails to take proper action, he is liable on conviction to three years imprisonment. Community ruling organs including executives of town, trust members and youth leaders in whose domain people are held hostage with their knowledge are also liable on conviction to be jailed for five years without option of fine. Besides, those who aid and assist kidnappers to escape will be sentenced to 21 years imprisonment on conviction.
To many people in the state, when the Governor refused to assent to the bill, the second time, it was just a case of who would blink first between him and the lawmakers.
To many people in the state, when the Governor refused to assent to the bill, the second time, it was just a case of who would blink first between him and the lawmakers.
Citing reasons why the assembly decided to veto the bill, the Speaker said the legislature considered the harsh and wicked activities of kidnappers and other terrorist acts too overwhelming to Deltans. “The House of Assembly in its judgment considered the harsh and wicked activities of kidnappers and other terrorist acts too overwhelming to Deltans,” he said.
Ironically, both members of the executive and the legislature had either directly or indirectly fallen victims of kidnapping in the state and therefore concluded that one of the ways to tame the growing menace was to veto the bill.
Ironically, both members of the executive and the legislature had either directly or indirectly fallen victims of kidnapping in the state and therefore concluded that one of the ways to tame the growing menace was to veto the bill.
But, Dr. Uduaghan disagreed with the House. In a letter to the Assembly on why he refused to assent to the bill, the Governor said from experience, death sentence had never reduced crime.
“I have in the last one year, studied reports on these crimes and what I find is that in most of the kidnap cases, the offence of armed robbery is disclosed. Suspects are therefore charged for both offences. The death sentence for armed robbery has not deterred criminally-minded persons from engaging in the crime and fixing the same death penalty for kidnapping in the bill is not likely to achieve that desired purpose.
“There is the current world-wide campaign calling for the abolition of death sentence from the law books and this campaign has been taken up by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies among several agencies,” Uduaghan said in his letter.
Besides, Uduaghan argued that there was already a death penalty in the state law and that the state did not need another law that would amount to duplication.
“There is the current world-wide campaign calling for the abolition of death sentence from the law books and this campaign has been taken up by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies among several agencies,” Uduaghan said in his letter.
Besides, Uduaghan argued that there was already a death penalty in the state law and that the state did not need another law that would amount to duplication.
“Every kidnapper is an armed robber. So, I don’t know why we are talking today of death penalty for kidnappers. Why do I have to sign another law for kidnappers? So, why this unnecessary debate about Uduaghan not agreeing to sign the death penalty for kidnappers and all that?” he said.
He, therefore, condemned the bill saying, death penalty had never staved off the perpetuation of capital crimes since it was introduced in the statute books, but that death sentence makes criminals more desperate, adding that a life sentence would have been better.
According to him, statistics had also shown that incidents of kidnapping are more pronounced in some neighbouring states where the same laws were in place and that it pales into insignificance when compared with the spate of killings and sectarian strife in some parts of the country.
He, therefore, condemned the bill saying, death penalty had never staved off the perpetuation of capital crimes since it was introduced in the statute books, but that death sentence makes criminals more desperate, adding that a life sentence would have been better.
According to him, statistics had also shown that incidents of kidnapping are more pronounced in some neighbouring states where the same laws were in place and that it pales into insignificance when compared with the spate of killings and sectarian strife in some parts of the country.
Delta State Commissioner of Information, Mr. Chike Ogeah, said in a statement that “As an independent arm of government, the house was well within its rights in the exercise of its legislative functions in taking its decision. It must be pointed out here that the house’s decision does not in any way portend a strain in the relationship between the Governor and the Lawmakers. Far from it, both arms have enjoyed and continued to enjoy warm and cordial relations.”
On the contrary, he said the development was the outcome of the principled stance of the governor against the prescription of death penalty for convicted kidnappers in the state. “In his letter to the house explaining his decision to withhold assent to the bill, the Governor had noted that death penalty for armed robbery in existing laws has not deterred criminally-minded persons from engaging in the crime.”
Therefore, fixing the same death penalty for kidnapping in the bill was not likely to achieve that desired purpose. “There is no incident of kidnapping that does not involve the charge of violent crime, including armed robbery and use of dangerous weapons in prosecuting suspects. In effect, existing statutes provide enough grounds for charges of armed robbery, which attracts the death penalty, should the law enforcement agents so desire.”
Therefore, fixing the same death penalty for kidnapping in the bill was not likely to achieve that desired purpose. “There is no incident of kidnapping that does not involve the charge of violent crime, including armed robbery and use of dangerous weapons in prosecuting suspects. In effect, existing statutes provide enough grounds for charges of armed robbery, which attracts the death penalty, should the law enforcement agents so desire.”
The Commissioner noted that Uduaghan, as a true democrat, respects the decision taken by the Assembly, which was done in exercise of its constitutional powers and will continue to collaborate with the lawmakers in curbing the scourge of kidnapping and other violent crimes in the state.
Constitutional lawyer and Human rights activist, Bar. Omes Ogedegbe while reacting to this development said: “The Governor’s refusal to implement the said law on anti-kidnap is like the usual tale by moonlight, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing. The worst the Governor could do was to withhold his assent to the bill, which he did and by the house resolution of a 2/3 majority, the house have made the Governor to realize that his assent can be dispensed with. The assent of the Governor is no more necessary, as the law immediately becomes operational when the house vetoed same, having summoned the requisite 2/3 majority. The Governor should humbly accept this position because it will be unpatriotic to declare his intentions and unwillingness to abide by the law, even if to my mind he does not have the powers to have made the declaration being speculated.
He added however that “notwithstanding the Governor’s statement, the law have been passed and the fate of a kidnapper would be determined by this law, until repealed or set aside.
“More so, it underscores the everyday security meeting staged by the Governor at public expense. It creates a desire of no genuine intention in curbing the growing trend of kidnapping. While public officers’ increase their security details daily, the masses are exposed to the mercy of kidnappers. It’s a case of insincerity of purpose.”
No comments:
Post a Comment