Major Hamza al-Mustapha, former chief security officer to the late General Sani Abacha, and a co-accused to know fate over the killing of the late Kudirat Abiola.
Twelve years ago when they were arraigned before a Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja over alleged complicity in the murder of Alhaja Kuditrat Abiola, the wife of the billionaire businessman cum politician, Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola, it appeared that judgment in the case will not come.
However, tomorrow will be a significant day for the nation’s judiciary as well as the family of the late Kudirat Abiola, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha and his co-accused, Alhaji Lateef Sofolahan, when Justice Mojisola Dada, sitting in High Court, Lagos Division, will deliver judgment on the controversial case. Whichever way the pendulum of the judgment swings, it will either add more injuries to the 12 years Al-Mustapha and his co-accused have spent in prison or make them free men.
The duo of Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan had earlier been accused of complicity in the murder of Kudirat alongside Mohammed Abacha, son of the late head of state, General Sani Abacha, and former head of Mopol in Aso Rock, ASP Mohammed Rabo Lawal.
They were arraigned alongside former Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi (rtd), the former Lagos State police boss, Mr. James Danbaba and Lt Col Jibrin Bala Yakubu, former military administrator of Zamfara State in another criminal charge of attempting to snuff life out of the late Guardian publisher, Mr. Alex Ibru, and a former commissioner for sports in Delta State, Mr. Isaac Porbeni, in 1996.
Before then, Al-Mustapha, Sofolahan, Mohammed Abacha and Rabo Lawal had been charged before an Ikeja Chief Magistrates’ Court in December 1999 and the court ordered them to be remanded in custody pending their formal arraignment at the High Court. When the state eventually established a prima-facie case against them, a four-count charge of “conspiracy and murder of Alhaja Abiola on June 4, 1996 along the Lagos/ Ibadan Expressway, Lagos toll gate, opposite Cargo Vision, Ikeja in Lagos” was preferred against them.
The charge No ID/43c/99 read: “At the Criminal Division of the High Court of Lagos State holden at Ikeja on the …. day of ….1999, the court is informed by the Attorney General on behalf of the State that: Hamza Al-Mustapha (m) Mohammed Rabo Lawal (m) Mohammed Sani Abacha (m) Alhaji Lateef Shofolahan (m) are charged with the following offences:
Statement of Offence -1st Count “Conspiracy to commit murder contrary to Section 324 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Laws of Lagos State 1994. Particulars of Offence Hamza Al- Mustapha, Mohammed Rabo Lawal, Mohammed Sani Abacha, Lateef Shofolahan between 1995 and June 1996, at Ikeja Judicial Division conspired to murder Kudirat Abiola.
Statementof Offence-2ndCount “Murder contrary to Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap 32, Laws of Lagos State 1994. Particulars of Offence Hamza Al-Mustapha, Rabo Lawal, Mohammed Sani Abacha and Lateef Shofolahan on or about the 4th day of June, 1996 along Lagos/Ibadan Expressway opposite Cargo Vision, Ikeja in the Ikeja Judicial Division murdered one Kudirat Abiola.
Statement of Offence -3rd Count “Accessory after the fact of murder contrary to Section 322 of the Criminal Code, Cap 32, Laws of Lagos State, 1994. Particulars of Offence Mohammed Sani Abacha sometime in 1999 knowing Mohammed Abdul (a.k.a Katako) to have murdered Kudirat Abiola in the Ikeja Judicial Division gave him various sums of money with intent to facilitate their escape from arrest and prosecution.
Statement of Offence- 4th count “Accessory after the fact to murder contrary to Section 322 of the Criminal Code, Cap 32 Laws of Lagos State 1994. Particulars of Offence – 4th count Mohammed Sani Abacha sometime in 1999 knowing Aminu Mohammed to have murdered Kudirat Abiola in the Ikeja Judicial Division gave him various sums of money with intent to facilitate their escape from arrest and prosecution.”
When the charges were read to them before Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, then of the Ikeja High Court, they all pleaded not guilty, which eventually set the stage for the trial.
Of course, the then Lagos State Attorney General, Prof. Yemi Osibajo, SAN, led the team of the prosecutors, supported by the then Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mr. Fola Arthur-Worrey, and other lawyers from Lagos State ministry of justice.
The defence team was led by the current president of the Nigeria Bar Association, NBA, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN, a former Minister of Solid Minerals, Alhaji Ali Kaloma, Messrs . Bala Ibn Na’Allah and Yakubu Mik’yau.
But no sooner than the case started when it began to suffer hitches. The defence brought a motion on notice asking the court to quash all the four counts and statements of offences purportedly filed before the court against Mohammed Abacha, one of the accused.
They hinged their application on the premise that the proof of evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against Mohammed requiring him to stand trial before the High Court on any of the charges. In her ruling, Justice Kekere-Ekun turned down the application and held that the accused person had a case to answer.
This led to an appeal lodged before the Lagos Division of the Appeal Court. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court that there were sufficient facts and inferences in the proof of evidence upon which Mohammed could be linked to the offences preferred against him.
Not satisfied, Abacha proceeded to the Supreme Court, which set him free. In its judgment of July 11, 2002, the Supreme Court unanimously quashed the information preferred against Mohammed. As if the other accused persons should be left off-hook after Mohammed was released, they started filling applications aiming at creating holes in the amended charges filed against them by the state.
But the state courageously continued with the trial until sometime in July last year when the trial jdge, Justice Dada, while ruling on a no-case-submission by the defence, acquitted one of the accused, Rabo Lawal, on the grounds that the prosecution could not establish his involvement in the crime.
Subsequently, the case suffered so much delay to the detriment of the accused persons who continued to languish in detention and the family of Abiola waiting for justice to take its course over the gruesome murder of their mother.
Then the state’s key witnesses, Sergeant Barnabas Jabila (aka Rogers), and another soldier, Mohammed Abdul (aka Katako), recanted on their roles in the alleged murder and how the crime was perfected. They had earlier told the court that Sofolahan, acting as Kudirat’s aide, gave them information on her itinerary, which aided them in accomplishing their task of eliminating her.
Jabila, a member of the special security outfit established to protect Abacha and his family, had also confirmed he shot at Kudirat, while Abdul, who served as personal driver to Mohammed, narrated how they (himself and Jabila) went out the day after meeting Sofolahan, trailed a white Mercedes Benz car from Ikeja to the old Lagos toll gate and how Jabila shot at the car and directed him to drive back to Dodan Barracks where they were staying.
In his evidence-in-chief, Jabila narrated how he was, some days before Kudirat’s assassination, summoned by Al-Mustapha to his office in Aso-Rock, handed some bags containing guns, and briefed on “ a special assignment”.
He also told the court that Sofolahan provided them with information about Kudirat’s movement and even led them to her residence after which his team planned strategies for the operation.
Jabila also said Sofolahan’s information aided them in trailing Kudirat until he shot her on June 4, 1996 in the car driven by Abdul.
Abdul, who acted as the prosecution’s third prosecution witness, corroborated Jabila’s testimony. He said he once worked with Mohammed’s late senior brother, Ibrahim, but had his service transferred to Mohammed after the latter’s death.
The revelations were stunning but with time and after the matter had passed through many judges, Jabila and Abdul recanted during cross-examination, denying all their earlier evidence. They later blamed their strange decision to somersault on their allegation that the state reneged on its promise to compensate them materially after the trial.
They alleged that the state failed to fulfil its promises, under the witness protection programme, to reward them and their families for acting as prosecution witnesses.
The case also suffered some hiccups after the fourth prosecution witness, Yusuf, who allegedly obtained statements from Al-Mustapha during investigation, also, midway into his testimony, refused further to cooperate with the prosecution. He allegedly refused to attend court, a development that forced the court to close the prosecution’s case in July after several adjournments.
Opening his defence, Al-Mustapha who witnessed for himself, denied all the allegations against him. He particularly denied sending anybody to kill Kudirat.
Apart from this, he denied any knowledge of sending any emissary or sponsored anybody to kill the victim and also monitor the activities of NADECO members. But he was confronted with his statement, from which he read to the court a portion, where he admitted sending Rabo Lawal to monitor a NADECO rally in Lagos.
On Kudirat, the prosecution confronted him with a statement by Mohammed Abacha, contained in the Supreme Court’s judgment in an interlocutory appeal by Mohammed, and upon which he was freed.
In the statement, part of which was read to the court by the lead prosecution lawyer, Lawal Pedro ,SAN, Mohammed admitted witnessing where Al-Mustapha gave Jabila a bag containing guns. This was vehemently opposed by Al-Mustapha’s counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo.
Also, Al-Mustapha, who earlier testified not to have tortured anyone in his life, later admitted, during cross-examination, that he tortured one Turner Ogboru. He also admitted that, as trained military personnel, he could take lives in public interest.
The defence also called a retired army personnel, Kyari Gadzama, who worked as an aide to Al-Mustapha, who testified in his favour. He admitted knowledge of Kudirat’s assassination, but said he heard of it from media reports. He also denied accompanying his ex-principal always to every of his engagements and meetings.
In his own testimony on August 17, 2011, which almost turned the court into a theater, Sofolahan, the third defence and last witness, also testified for himself. In his own testimony, he denied involvement in the offences for which he was accused.
To the chagrin of those present in court, he denied ever working for any member of Abiola family or was a personal assistant to Kudirat. He claimed he only heard about the woman’s death from media reports while denying knowledge that she was shot dead on June 4, 1996, but said he only learnt she died in her car.
Speaking about his relationship with the Abiola family, he said he only served as a protocol officer in the late Chief Abiola’s campaign organization in 1993.
He, however, told the court how he worked for the transmutation agenda of the late General Abacha while Abiola was in custody. He also said he later worked in 1998 with the campaign organization set up by former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Sequel to the adoption of the final written addresses on November 10, 2011 by the parties in the case, the prosecution argued it had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and urged the court to convict the accused accordingly. The defence urged the court to acquit his clients on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily discharge the burden of proof placed on it by law.
Ojo, the lead defence counsel, who prepared a long list of citations to buttress his argument, said it was impossible for the court to find his clients guilt based on “the bunch of contradictory and unreliable evidence provided by the prosecution, particularly by its star witnesses, Jabila and Abdul.”
The lead prosecution counsel and Lagos State Solicitor General, Pedro, argued that, in proving conspiracy, it is immaterial that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other.
He added that the court could also reach a decision of conviction based on inference as against relying solely on direct evidence.He argued that though Jabila and Abdul recanted, having earlier admitted carrying out the murder on the order of Al-Mustapha, the court could still establish the accused persons culpability from the available circumstantial evidence.
On the issue of whether the prosecution had proved the charge of murder, the lawyer told the court he relied on Section 7 of the Criminal Code.
He submitted that it was immaterial for the accused persons to be present where Kudirat was shot or participated in the shooting for them to be guilty of the offence.
According to him, what was material was the circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution before the court. Pedro added that despite the argument by the defendants that prosecution’s key witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, the court could still establish a guilt verdict against the accused persons.
In his 112- page reply, Ojo, counsel to the defendants, raised five issues for determination. First, he argued that the court had to find out whether or not Jabila and Abdul were credible and reliable witnesses, whose evidence could be accepted and relied upon by the court having regard to the contradictions and inconsistent evidence.
He drew the attention of the court to what it required of it to pass conviction on the defendants, since the law says, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, he spoke on what evidential value the court could attach to the extra judicial statements made by the defendants and the extent to which they could be used by the court in the determination of the suit.
He maintained that since some of the evidence, especially statements obtained from the defendants were allegedly taken under duress, the court should discountenance them.
Without doubt, the ball is now in the court of Justice Dada who will sit in judgment to sieve the truth from the falsehood on the gruesome murder of Kudirat.
0 comments:
Post a Comment