When
the Court of Appeal overturned the death sentence passed on Major Hamza
Al-Mustapha and Alhaji Lateef Shofolahan, setting two of them free, the
nation was gripped by shock and disbelief.
Mixed
reactions from a cross section of Nigerians spanning all walks of life
poured in. Even the Clergy, Christian and Islamic; civil society groups
and the political class were not left out.
Freedom
came to Al-Mustapha after almost 15 years of being incarcerated when
many people had lost hope, believing that sooner or later, he and Lateef
Shofolahan would be facing the hangman.
The
duo was condemned to death by hanging on January 30, 2012 by Justice
Mojisola Dada of the Lagos High Court in Igbosere for killing of Kudirat
Abiola on June 4, 1996.
But
dramatically, the whole scenario changed when the all-female Justices
of the Appeal Court, Lagos Division, who heard the appeal, discharged
and acquitted them of murder over the killing of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola
whose husband, Chief MKO Abiola was presumed to have won the June 12,
1993 presidential election, but annulled by the military.
Nigerians
seemed split over the Appeal Court judgement some saying justice has
been done, while others believe justice was miscarried. However, the
final arbiter is the Supreme Court, if ever the Lagos State Government
would appeal the judgement. But for now, they’ve regained their freedom.
By Emmanuel Edukugho
Mixed
reactions have continued to trail the Appeal Court verdict setting free
the two men who have since returned to their homes.
An enterprising lawyer, Barrister Mercy O. Aminah, shares opinion on the verdict.
Excerpts of the interview:
What do you feel about the judgement?
Before
I comment, I want to say, I have not read the full details of the
judgement and to study it. But suffice to say, I am just offering
ordinary opinion as a Nigerian on the street. I want to say that I am
amazed at the whole proceedings beginning from the High Court even to
the Appeal Court. I am surprised and bewildered at the judgement. After
14 years in prison for a murder charge that took a long time of
investigation and several witnesses called to testify for the state and
the defence, the prosecution cannot get it right. When will our justice
system be seen to be right and fair! It is amazing.
Should
the prosecuting authority be blamed for doing a shoddy job at the
beginning which eventually led to the discharge and acquittal of
al-Mustapha?
I
don’t want to say that the prosecution did not do its work properly.
However, when somebody has been charged for committing a crime, but you
bring so many persons along over the matter, it could cause some
confusion in the process of prosecution. It may be difficult at the end
for justice to prevail.
Undoubtedly,
there is rot in the entire system – executive, legislative and
judiciary, in fact all three tiers of government. The whole thing is
nauseating. I mean the entire system is rubbish. Something must be done
to clean up the system for we cannot continue this way. Some people have
called for a revolution. I am scared about the future of Nigeria.
In this al-Mustapha case, from the very beginning, the prosecution did not get it right. Hence it has ended in this way.
Do you see justice done or you see injustice either in this case?
Justice
or no justice, 14 years after he was incarcerated, we are seeing the
wheel of justice still rolling. Was the case against him cooked up? Did
he confess to killing Kudirat Abiola? Were confessions made under
duress? Did he do it? These and other questions have to be considered
and weighed before judgement was to be passed.
The
Honourable Justices of the Appeal Court must have carefully looked at
the whole matter and gave their verdict based on merit.
This
is a criminal matter. And there is a standard in this aspect – a
criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, unlike a civil
case which depends absolutely on evidence. If it’s civil case, you will
begin to pile up evidence until they tilt in your favour. You need not
prove your case beyond reasonable doubt – in civil proceedings. But not
so in criminal cases. There is a standard, and the standard is that you
must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There must
not be room for doubt. Once there is doubt whatsoever, it is usually
resolved in favour of the accused person.
From
what I read of the judgement in newspapers, there were contradictions
in the evidence of the witnesses which the lower court had ignored
before passing the death sentence on the accused. Based on the
proceedings of the High Court, the Appeal Court judges believed there
was no evidence to convict the accused.
So
this brings us to the issue of prima facie which was not sufficiently
established against the accused in the first place during proceedings,
at the lower court. So the prosecution could not prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. In such situation, the Appeal Court had no option but
to acquit and discharge the convicts.
The
George Zimmerman acquittal by a jury in the US over the killing of a
black youth, Trayvon Martin was because the prosecution was unable to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There were contradictory
evidence and so the jury ruled in favour of Zimmerman who could have
been convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But he was
cleared which caused outrage in the US leading to massive protests and
demonstrations across major cities in America. Many people, especially
Black Americans felt there was no justice in this case. But taking an
incisive look into the Zimmerman verdict, the prosecution could not
prove its case of murder beyond reasonable doubt as the accused said he
shot Trayvon in self defence when found in the neighbourhood in
suspicious and questionable circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment