JULY 13, 2013
Bamidele Aturu
The National Publicity Secretary of Afenifere, Mr. Yinka Odumakin, has described Major Hamza Al-Mustapha’s freedom on Friday as giving licence to killers.
Odumakin said this on the telephone while reacting to the judgment of the Court of Appeal that discharged and acquitted Al-Mustapha of murder conviction.
He said, “This is a shame on the criminal justice system. There have been several cases of killing without anyone being brought to book. We thought that for the first time, justice would prevail. But the spirit of Kudirat Abiola will not rest until it gets justice.”
Odumakin, however, added that the judgment did not come as a surprise to the group as it had been privy to information to that effect. He said the judgment would be appealed.
He said, “The judgment didn’t come to us as a surprise, we already read about it in Saharareporters some weeks ago. But the prosecution will be urged to go to the Supreme Court so that all justice avenues on earth would be seen to have been exhausted before we leave the issue to God.”
But in a sharp contrast, a human rights lawyer, Fred Agbaje, said the judgment was victory for the rule of law.
Agbaje said on the telephone that the judgment had shown that the Nigerian legal system was moving away from public sentiments and circumstantial evidence-based trials to hard-core evidence-based convictions.
He said Nigerians needed to understand the difference between criminal and civil cases. He said in a criminal law, the prosecution is required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts with reliable evidence.
He said, “The judgment has affirmed that in Nigeria, our constitutional democracy is firmly rooted in the rule of law. I knew from the beginning that the case won’t succeed. The problem with the case was that the prosecution did not do their homework well. The case had prosecutorial lacunas.
“Making Sergeant Rogers the crown witness did not allow for reliable evidence, only circumstantial type and that doesn’t count in law.
“That was what the defence counsel capitalised on. With due respect to the trial high court judge, I believe she relied more on public feelings for the conviction.”
Reacting to the judgment, Malam Abubakar Malami, SAN, said the Court of Appeal must have arrived at the verdict after considering the facts of the case.
He said, “The truth of the matter is that the Court of Appeal must have looked into the available evidence and the facts of the case.
“It is a decision that is well founded against the backdrop of the evidence reviewed by the court.
“It is not as if the trial court did not do a thorough job – the decision of the trial court must have been based on some variables which the appellate court found untenable.
“It is a matter of analysis of the evidence at hand and the entire proceedings.”
A human rights lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Aturu, said he had not read the judgment, as a result, could not say whether it was sound or not.
But Aturu stressed that Al-Mustapha’s trial should serve as a lesson to those in power that there will always be a day of reckoning.
He said, “The implication of the decision is that Al-Mustapha is free in the sense that he has been discharged and acquitted.
“Whether the Supreme Court ultimately confirms the decision of the court of appeal or not, what is important is that people who occupy leadership positions in Nigeria should know that there is a day of reckoning.
“They should not continue to act with impunity. The fact that he went through this trial should be a lesson to all.”
No comments:
Post a Comment