Supreme Court Sentences Killer Guard To Death

The Supreme Court on Friday confirmed the death sentence passed on a security guard, Stephen Haruna by the Abuja Court of Appeal. Haruna killed the Power Holding Company of Nigeria, Assistant General Manager (Legal) Miss. E. N. Igwe on December 31, 2003. In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Suleiman Galadima, the apex court held that it was established that Haruna (the Appellant) was the only person in the house of the deceased at the time of her death.

There was no evidence of any forceful entry or breakage to gain entry into the deceased house and the accused was the only person in the compound with the deceased and nobody else.

The Police recovered a number of exhibits which incriminated him. His confessional statement was corroborated by the discovery of the stolen money which he took to his girlfriend at Kubwa, suburb of Abuja city for safe keeping.

Stephen Haruna had appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja dated January 22, 2010 affirming the decision of the High Court of Abuja FCT on October 6, 2008 in which he was convicted and sentenced to death for culpable homicide contrary to section 221 of the penal code.

“In the face of overwhelming evidence against the appellant, I cannot upturn the concurrent findings of the trial court and the court of Appeal when the appellant failed to demonstrate that the said concurrent findings were perverse and could not be supported having regards to the evidence adduced by the Prosecutor”, Justice Suleiman Galadima said.

SHARE THIS POST

Read More...

Supreme court sacks Kebbi Gov

The Supreme Court yesterday brought the tenure of Governor Usman Sa’idu Dakingari of Kebbi State to an abrupt end when it nullified his election and ordered a fresh election to be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) within 90 days from the date of the judgment.

This is the second time that a court would nullify his election since assuming office as governor of the state on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal first nullified Dakingari’s election before the Court of Appeal upturned the decision in his favour, upon an appeal.

In a unanimous judgment yesterday, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal, not being a final court in the determination of appeals arising from the conduct of governorship election, exceeded the statutory period of 60 days within which it is expected to give its final verdict on the appeal.

The apex court, accordingly, declared that the appellate court lacked the power to deliver judgment and defer the reasons for its decision, more so, to a date, which is outside the mandatory 60 days prescribed by Section 285 (7) of the Constitution Justice Samuel Walter Onnoghen, who read the judgment of the court, blamed the failure of the Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upturned the decision of the Kebbi State Election Petition Tribunal to have proffered reasons for its judgment while delivering it.

The apex court specifically held that the appeal court had only 60 days within which to dispense with the appeal in terms of the judgment and the accompanying reasons beginning from the date of filing the appeal.

In the instant case, the decision of the appeal court was given on December 29, 2011 but it deferred the reasons for its decision to January 23, 2012, a date which the apex court held was clearly out of the 60 days prescribed by section 285 (7) and (8) of the nation’s constitution as amended.

“It is obligatory for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to dispose an appeal within 60 days from the date of the decision being appealed, section 285 (7) implies that both the decision and the reasons for that decisions, must be completed within the stipulated time. Any decision without a reason is no decision at all. The judiciary has no option than to work within the time frame provided by the law,” the apex court said.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, Abubakar Malam Abubakar, who challenged the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeal and declared the Court of Appeals decision invalid and a nullity.

Meanwhile, the Peoples’ Democratic Party has expressed shock over the Supreme Court’s judgment. Reacting to the judgment, in a statement issued yesterday, in Abuja, through the national publicity secretary, Professor Rufai Ahmed Alkali, PDP appealed to its teeming supporters in the state to remain calm and assured the party faithful that it would prepare ahead to win the re-run election.

“The Peoples Democratic Party has received with great shock the verdict of the Supreme Court, which nullified the election of our governor in Kebbi State, His Excellency, Alhaji Saidu Usman Dakingari. While our faith in the judiciary remains unwavering, we are deeply concerned with the trend of judgments some of which breed unnecessary tension and instability.

“The National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party Alhaji Abubakar Kawu Baraje, on behalf of the National Working Committee (NEC) and the entire members of the PDP is deeply touched by this temporary setback, but calls on all our teeming supporters in Kebbi State to remain calm, law abiding and continue to support the Peoples Democratic Party which remains the most formidable and purposeful political party in Nigeria.

“We however, wish to commend Alhaji Dakingari for all his efforts in the courts and urge him and his team in the State to be steadfast, courageous, while the Party prepares for a re-run elections which God willing, we shall win.”

Read More...

15 years after: S/Court frees self-confessed cannibal(HUMAN EATER)

Whereas an alleged cannibal confessed during the hearing of the case against him at the lower court, the Supreme Court set him free of the charge of murder.

“Yes, I ate the flesh of the deceased though I did not participate in the killing”, the alleged cannibal, Mr. Edet Obeten Mbang, was quoted as telling a Cross River State High Court, Ugep Divison.

That was 15 years ago.

It was on the basis of the confession that the High Court sentenced him and three other persons to death.But Mbang appealed.

The Supreme Court acquitted him on Thursday.

The victim, Baba Okoi, was murdered and the flesh allegedly eaten by the quartet on October 7, 1989.

The three others convicted by the High Court were Obeten Leko Essien, Mbang Efoli Mbang and Fidelis Onen Obeten.

The prosecutor said Okoi was murdered and his “human meat” was “butchered” and “shared” by the accused persons.

The quartet, were, on June 19, 1997, found guilty by the High Court and okayed for the hang-man.

The prosecution had told the court that the accused persons and the deceased attended a burial ceremony on the day of the murder where it said the Enyim War dance, also called Kojo dance, was performed.

It alleged that Mbang witnessed and participated in the killing of the victim.

To prove the allegation, the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered 17-exhibits at the court.

The accused persons made a ‘no case submission’ on the matter, an action that was overruled by the High Court on January 15, 1997.

Upon concluding hearing on the case, the accused persons were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, Mbang pleaded the Calabar Division of the Court of Appeal to reverse his death penalty, a suit that was dismissed for want of merit.

However, when the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, it remitted the case-file back to the appellate court for re-trial.

In a unanimous decision of the appellate court on March 16, 2006, it also dismissed the appeal, just as it affirmed the verdict of the lower court.

Not satisfied with the proceedings of the appellate court, Mbang filed a notice of appeal before the Supreme Court on June 12, 2006.

Canvassing reasons why the death penalty should not stand, counsel to the accused person, Mr Adekunle Oyesanya, argued that though his client participated in the ‘flesh eating ritual’, the victim had already died before Mbang had contact with his body.

Delivering judgment on the appeal on Thursday, the apex court agreed with the appellant’s counsel that Mbang was not guilty of the offence as charged even though he participated in the eating of the deceased. Consequently, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who read the lead judgment, discharged and acquitted the accused person.

Read More...

Kebbi: Why Supreme Court sacked kebbi state Gov Dakingari

The Supreme Court, yesterday, sacked Governor Usman Saidu Nasamu Dakingari of Kebbi State from office and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to conduct fresh gubernatorial election in the state within 90 days.

The judgment delivered by a 5-man panel of justices led by Justice Walter Onnoghen, was sequel to an appeal lodged by the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, and its candidate in the April 26, 2011, governorship election in the state, Malam Abubakar Abubakar.

In an unanimous judgment the apex court nullified an earlier verdict of the Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal which ab-initio affirmed Dakingari as the winner of the April 26, 2011 polls.

While setting-aside the appellate court’s verdict on the premise that it was legally defective, the Supreme Court panel noted that the lower court erred in law when it deferred the reasons behind its judgment to a date outside the 60 days that was prescribed by section 285 (7) and (8) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, for the determination of governorship appeals.

It held that it was wrong for the appellate court to give its judgment within the constitutionally stipulated period for the determination of such cases and reserve reasons behind its decision till a date outside the period, saying such action ipso-facto rendered the said judgment nugatory.

The apex court observed that whereas the appellate court gave its judgment on December 29, 2011, it was unable to justify the verdict with reasons until January 24, 2012.

Consequently, the Supreme Court made an order setting-aside the decision of the appeal court, and upheld the verdict of the Kebbi State Election Petition Tribunal, which had earlier sacked the governor and ordered a fresh election in the state.

According to the apex court, the Court of Appeal not being the final court in the determination of appeals arising from the conduct of governorship elections, lacked the constitutional power to deliver judgment and defer the reasons for its decision, more so, to a date outside the mandatory 60 days prescribed by 4ection 285 (7) of the Constitution.

Justice Onnoghen who read the lead judgment yesterday, maintained that, “it is obligatory for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to dispose an appeal within 60 days from the date of the decision being appealed, since section 285 (7) implies that both the decision and the reasons for that decision, must be completed within the stipulated time. Any decision without a reason is no decision at all. The Judiciary has no option than to work within the time frame provided by the law.”

Meantime, the verdict has elicited mixed reactions in the polity. The PDP picked holes in the judgment saying it was capable of causing tension and instability in the country.

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Professor Rufai Alkali, the party said it received the verdict with shock, adding that the party hierarchy was deeply touched ‘this temporary setback.’

We should commend the judiciary – Bamidele Aturu

Reacting to the ruling, Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Bamidele Aturu commended the Judiciary. ‘I think it is a good decision. Any decision that invalidates whatever that is wrongly done is always a good decision for me. Again, talking about our democracy, the Supreme Court is expected to intervene in a matter like this so that the politicians would know that they cannot go away with impunity. That will also send a clear message to the political parties and that the political elites should behave with decorum and in accordance with the rule of the game.’

PDP ‘ll win again – Babatope

A chieftain of the PDP, Chief Ebenezer Babatope, said the PDP had always respected the rule of law and would accept the judgment on Kebbi. ‘I also want to say in very clear language that we will win the election again and Governor Dakingari will return as governor with the full support of the people of Kebbi.’

It is good only if… – Pat Utomi

On his part, Professor Pat Utomi, said, ‘what Nigeria needs now is to establish the rule of law. Under the adjudication as we have it now, it re-inforces the rule of law. So, as long as the decision re-inforces the consciousness of people, it is good. What matters is that no man is stronger or weaker before the law. The course of the law is followed through and that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, then it is a good thing. But if it is percieved as not re-enforcing the rule of law, then it further deepens Nigeria’s crisis because there is a major crisis rocking our country. Unfortunately at this point, it includes the judicial process which the NBA president alluded to.’

It is a common occurence— Balarabe Musa

To Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the decision is a common occurrence and does not also mean the judiciary is clean. ‘I just see it as another opportunity for others to contest the election again. But you know what I am talking about, it is a common occurrence in Nigeria. It has a great implication for democracy, if democracy exists at all. What we have is civilian rule which happens to be a type of dictatorial military rule.’

Read More...

BREAKING NEWS:Supreme Court sacks Kebbi governor

The Supreme Court on Friday sacked the Kebbi State Governor, Saidu Usman Dakingari from office.

The apex court also asked the Independent National Electoral Commission to conduct a fresh goverrnorship election in the state within 90 days.

In the verdict read by Justice Walter Onnoghen, the Supreme Court vacated the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal which upheld Dakingari's victory in last April's governorship election in the state.

Read More...

Supreme Court sacks 5 Nigerian governors

A seven- man panel of the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision this morning sacked Governors Liyel Imoke, Murtala Nyako, Ibrahim Idris, Wamako and Temipre Silva of Cross River, Adamawa, Kogi, Sokoto and Bayelsa states from office.

The court in Abuja held that the tenures of the governors started to count from the time they took their oath of office after emerging winners in their respective state governorship elections in 2007 and not from the period they took their second oaths of office after emerging winners of the re-run elections when there initial elections were nullified.

A Federal High Court had earlier held that their tenures of office started to run from their later oaths of office and oath of allegiance which they took upon their emergence as winners of their respective re run elections.

The apex court held that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeal erred in law when the considered the actions taken by the respective governors before their elections were nullified by the various Election Petition Tribunals as valid on one hand while discounting the time they spent doing those valid actions from their constitutionally prescribed tenure of office.

180. (1) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of Governor of a State until -

(a) When his successor in office takes the oath of that office; or

(b) he dies whilst holding such office; or

(c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or

(d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

In reaching their decision, the Supreme Court relied on section 180 (2) of the Constitution wherein the tenure of office of Governors were prescribed and held that that section did not envisage any form of elongation of occupants of the office of the Governor of the state as well as that of the President.

The section reads:

180 (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when -

(a) in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office; and

(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

The court held that the provisions of that section of the Constitution will stand violated if the tenure of office of the Governors is calculated from their second taking of Oath of Office and the Oath of Allegiance and stated that their tenure started counting from their first Oath of office which they all took after they were declared winners of the April 2007 elections and that they are entitled to four year terms from that date.

The court also rapped the Peoples Democratic party for attempting to abort the hearing of the matter at the court through their preliminary objections filed against all the consolidated appeals. The party had argued that the subject matter of the appeals have become academic and should be dismissed.

While dismissing the PDP’s preliminary objections, the apex court maintained that the matter is of grave constitutional importance whose subject matter is still alive and cannot be truncated on the grounds of mere technicalities.

In countering the decisions of the Federal High Court and that of the Court of Appeal, the apex court asserted that the provision of the law did not envisage an indefinite occupation of office by a Governor and did not also envisage re run elections, left alone one to be won by the same person.

It went on to hold that since acions of these governors, like contracts awarded by them, Commissioners and Special Assistants appointed by them as well as Budgets and Bills signed into law by them remained valid and subsisting when their election were annulled, that it followed that upon emerging winners of their respective re run elections, and having to take another Oaths of Office and Allegiance which is a standard procedure before they can function as Governors, that their tenure begins to count from that first oaths they took in 2007 and not the second ones they took in 2008 after their victories in the re-run elections.

Read More...