A human rights activist and Director of Communication and Advocacy of Make A Difference Initiative, Lemmy Ughegbe, has decried the failure of Justice Yusuf Halilu to diligently follow the letters and processes of law in reaching a decision to convict Maryam Sanda on the charge of taking the life of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello.
Speaking with ARISE NEWS, the human rights advocate said Justice Halilu, whom he described as a “courageous judge”, had stripped the judgment of legitimacy by abusing due process.
He noted that Justice Halilu had jumped the gun by hastening to deliver a verdict on trial without due regard to the preliminary objection, which challenged the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain it.
He said, “The judge committed a fatal blunder when he failed to consider the preliminary objection and rule on it one way or the other before delivering his judgment.
“I have studied the judgment of Justice Halilu and it is crystal clear that he failed to rule on the preliminary objection one way or the other. Based on the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Justice Halilu had upon hearing the preliminary objection announced that he would go ahead with the trial and when it was all done, he would rule on the objection and its success or failure and determine whether or not to proceed to deliver a judgment.
“It is trite that when issues of competence of a charge and jurisdiction of a court are raised, the court must dispense with that issue one way or the other.
"This judge misdirected himself by not considering and ruling on these issues raised and it is settled law that however elegant a proceeding or a judgment is, it becomes invalid, null and void in that circumstance.”
Ughegbe said the failure of the judge to rule on the preliminary objection amounted to a bias against the defendant and a consequent denial of her constitutional right to fair hearing.
He stated, “I advise them to make this a number one ground of appeal as I believe it is a settled principle in our law that without fair hearing a proceeding is flawed and incurably defective.
“No person should be convicted for the offence of murder, which attracts capital punishment based on circumstantial evidence.
“The absence of a murder weapon, autopsy report, confessional statement and pictures taken of the body of the deceased make it nearly impossible to convict Maryam Sanda on the charge of culpable homicide.”
Speaking further, the rights activist noted that the judge had misdirected himself and assumed the position of an IPO whereas the only job he was paid to do was look at the various evidence before him and evaluate them to make a decision.
Recall that on January 27, the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja had sentenced Sanda to death for killing Bello.
Sanda had on November 19, 2017 stabbed her husband to death following an allegation of infidelity against him after seeing a text message on his phone.
Legal News AddThis : Original Author : SaharaReporters, New York Disable advertisements :from Latest News https://ift.tt/37Qbfmu
0 comments:
Post a Comment