metro

Pharmacist jailed for life over rape freed by appeal court

Published

4 months ago

July 19, 2024

Dr. Abubakar Danraka, former Chief Pharmacist of the National Hospital, Abuja

Pharmacist jailed for life over rape freed by appeal court

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has discharged and acquitted a pharmacist, Abubakar Mustapha Danraka, earlier sentenced to life imprisonment by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory FCT upon conviction for rape.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, headed by Justice Joseph Oyewole faulted the findings and decision of the High Court of the FCT and proceeded to set it aside.

In the lead judgment, Justice Oyewole found among others, that the case was poorly investigated and that the prosecution failed to prove its case with credible evidence as required.

The judgment, delivered on July 15 was on the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CR/1019/2023 filed by Danraka.

Danraka is described as the Special Adviser to the Director General of the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Development (NIPRD), Abuja

He was arraigned on April 5, 2022 on a one count charge of rape, marked: FCT/HC/CR/014/2022 brought against him by National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP).

Danraka was, in the charge, alleged to have, between March 20 and 21, 2020 raped a 12-year-old male neighbour (names withheld) by intentionally penetrating the victim’s anus with his penis.

READ ALSO:

The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred at Spring Valley Estate, Airport Road, Abuja.

He denied the allegation by pleading not guilty, following which the prosecution called four witnesses during the trial, while the defendant called three witnesses, including himself.

In a judgment on September 18, 2023, Justice Asmau Akanbi-Yusuf accepted the case of the prosecution, convicted Danraka and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision he appealed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

Justice Oyewole, in the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that the trial court was wrong to have admitted the victim’s extra judicial statement as part of the prosecution’s evidnce.

He also held that the prosecution was wrong not to have investigated the alibi raised by Danraka.

Justice Oyewole also faulted the medical doctor – Dr. Denni Richard Shettima of the Nation’s Hospital, Abuja – who examined the alleged victim, for not equally subjecting the defendant to medical scrutiny.

The judge added: “The only eye-witness to the commission of the said rape was the victim, who testified as PW2 (the victim) at the trial.

“His testimony failed to specifically state that he was raped or penetrated by the appellant.

“In convicting the appellant, however, the lower court relied on the extra-judicial statement of the same PW2 tendered through PW1 (the investigating police officer – IPO) by the prosecution.

“This was an error as the lower court failed to take cognizance of the clear provisions of sections 232 and 233 of the Evidence Act 2011.

“The said extra judicial statement of PW2 was inadmissible for the purposes for which the lower court admitted it and in relying on the said extra judicial statement for evidence to convict the appellant, the findings which emanated therefrom were not only perverse but had occasioned miscarriage of justice.

“As earlier stated, the extra-judicial statement of a witness is not to be tendered in evidence and used as additional evidence against the criminal defendant or accused person, it can only be used to resolve contradictions in the testimony of the witness.

“It follows therefore that a court cannot rely on inadmissible evidence to arrive at its decision.

“The medical doctor who examined PW2 testified as PW4 (the medical doctor) and his evidence was assessed by the lower court as providing needed corroboration for the content of exhibit C, the wrongfully admitted extra judicial statement of PW2.

“On his own, the said PW4 did not examine the appellant although he (the appellant) was readily available at the earliest opportunity.

“His (the medical doctor’s) testimony therefore did not link the appellant with the offence.

“Also, his testimony cannot be corroborated or provide corroboration for the wrongfully admitted exhibit C.

“The absence of legally admissible evidence of penetration by the appellant and the absence of any examination of the appellant by PW4 rendered the evidence of the said PW4 worthless before the court.

“The situation of the respondent was only further exacerbated by the failure to investigate the alibi of the appellant which was raised at the earliest opportunity as contained in exhibit B,” he said.

Justice Oyewole held that the evaluation of the issue of alibi of the appellant by the lower court and the method of investigation by the investigators created an unacceptable impression that the appellant did not enjoy a presumption of innocence under section 36 (5) of the Constitution and that he had the duty of proving his own innocence.

He added: “This must never happen in a criminal trial especially one where the appellant faced the punishment of life imprisonment.

“It is a constitutional imperative that investigators approach their task with an open mind which permits of the possibility that the person brought before them as the alleged offender may be innocent.

“That way every piece of Investigative lead would be adequately covered without any iota of bias.

“In line with the provisions of section 36 (5) of the Constitution that where doubts arise in the case presented by the prosecution then such doubts should be resolved in favour of the accused person or criminal defendant.

“The highlighted doubts in the case of the respondent herein must ensure to the benefit of the appellant.

“In totality, therefore, I find merit in this appeal and I hereby allow it.

“Consequently, the judgment of the lower court delivered in Suit No. FCT/HC/CR/014/2022 delivered on 18th September 2023 is hereby set aside.

“I equally set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and instead, the appellant is hereby discharged and acquitted,” Justice Oyewole said.

Justices Peter Obiorah and Okon Abang, who are members of the panel, also agreed with the lead judgment.

Pharmacist jailed for life over rape freed by appeal court

metro

$6bn fraud: Judge scolds Agunloye’s counsel over delay tactics

Published

21 hours ago

November 15, 2024

Trends Admin

Former Power and Steel Minister Olu Agunloye

$6bn fraud: Judge scolds Agunloye’s counsel over delay tactics

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal High Court, Apo, Abuja On Thursday, chastised Adeola Adedipe, SAN, counsel to former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, for using delay tactics to slow the pace of the former minister’s prosecution.

Agunloye is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on seven counts of official corruption and fraudulent award of the Mambilla Power Project contract worth $6 billion.

During Thursday’s hearings, the court observed that the defence counsel has been in the habit of making excuses based on Agunloye’s health and age, as well as filing various motions, ensuring that little progress has been achieved in the trial.

Addressing the defence counsel, Justice Onwuegbuzie stated that “My principle of justice is that of no delay. The other time you brought the issue of amicus curiae and wasted the time of the court. You should also know that in my court I don’t read processes.

READ ALSO:

“If you need time to serve processes, it must reach me on time, and your colleague must also be duly aware in time. There must be mutual respect. Do not come and serve processes in court; I don’t take that in my court,” he said.

Prosecuting Counsel Abba Mohammed, SAN, informed the court at the start of proceedings that the business of the day was the adoption of the prosecution’s application for the amendment of the charge, which was filed on October 30, 2024, to which the defence responded with a counter-affidavit and a request for an adjournment to allow the prosecution to study the affidavit.

Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the case until November 28, 2024, to rule on the adoption of the application.

$6bn fraud: Judge scolds Agunloye’s counsel over delay tactics

metro

Emefiele printed new naira notes different from what Buhari approved – Ex-CBN official

Published

22 hours ago

November 15, 2024

Trends Admin

Former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele

Emefiele printed new naira notes different from what Buhari approved – Ex-CBN official

The trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, continued at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama on Thursday, November 14, 2024.

A former CBN Deputy Governor, Kingsley Obiora, who served in the policy department, testified that the newly printed naira notes issued during Emefiele’s tenure deviated from the approval granted by then-President Muhammadu Buhari.

In his testimony before Justice Maryann Anenih via Zoom, Obiora disclosed, “the approval by then President Muhammadu Buhari was different from what was eventually produced,” according to a statement from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Obiora, responding to evidence presented by prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo SAN, explained that he noticed discrepancies when comparing the naira notes in circulation with the President’s original directive.

During his seven-year tenure at the CBN, Obiora served on the Committee of Governors (COG), which he described as a body comprising “the governor, four deputy governors, and the director of corporate services.” He clarified, “The governor is the Chairman of the Committee, and during my tenure as Deputy Governor, Emefiele was our Chairman.” Obiora said the Committee met every Wednesday to address significant policy matters.

READ ALSO:

Obiora recalled the initial introduction of the redesign plan during an event marking the one-year anniversary of the e-naira in Lagos on October 25, 2022. “The governor called all four deputy governors into a huddle and informed us of the plan to redesign the currency,” he said, expressing immediate concerns, as he felt “the event itself may not be the appropriate place to announce such a major policy.” He advised that the policy undergo further scrutiny before any public announcement.

Despite his reservations, Obiora noted that Emefiele proceeded with the plan, formally presenting it to the COG on October 26, 2022. “The governor mentioned that we had already had the president’s approval for the policy,” he stated, adding, “The deputy governor in charge of currency operations presented a memo, and it was discussed, deliberated upon.” Following this, a press conference was held to announce the redesign.

Obiora explained that the CBN Board was formally briefed on the naira redesign months later, in mid-December 2022. He said, “The policy was discussed at the board level mid-December. The board did not sit as day-to-day management but instead gave policy directions.” Obiora clarified that “the board’s involvement in the policy was limited to endorsing the COG’s prior decision, not initiating it.”

During cross-examination, defense counsel Olalekan Ojo, SAN, questioned Obiora about the timing of the board’s formal involvement. Ojo suggested that the December meeting “conforms with the naira notes currently in circulation,” to which Obiora responded, “Yes, sir.” He noted there had been no indication or directive from former President Buhari challenging the redesign.

Reflecting on past experiences with currency design, Obiora mentioned that while he was with the bank during the introduction of a redesigned N100 note in 2014, he was not directly involved in its development.

After delivering his testimony, Justice Anenih discharged Obiora and adjourned the case to December 4, 2024, and January 21, 2025, for further proceedings.

Emefiele printed new naira notes different from what Buhari approved – Ex-CBN official

metro

Train attack: ECOWAS court dismisses SERAP suit against FG

Published

22 hours ago

November 15, 2024

Trends Admin

Train attack: ECOWAS court dismisses SERAP suit against FG

The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) has rejected a suit filed by a group of Nigerian activists, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) over an attack by bandits on an Abuja-Kaduna train on March 28, 2022.

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because relevant ingredients that could qualify it to be entertained as a public interest litigation were missing.

SERAP filed the case after bandits attacked the Abuja-Kaduna passenger train in 2022.

In the attack, armed assailants bombed the train carrying over 970 passengers on the Abuja-Kaduna rail line near Rigasa in Kaduna.

The attack led to numerous fatalities, injuries, and abductions.

SERAP, by its case, sought to hold the government of Nigeria accountable for alleged human rights violations in relation to the terrorist attack.

The organisation claimed, among others, that the attack was the result of the state’s inability to provide tight security for the passengers.

READ ALSO:

SERAP argued that Nigeria’s alleged lack of measures to avert the attack violated the rights of passengers to life, security, and dignity.

It prayed for a N50 million compensation for each of the passengers and their families.

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the regional court declared the suit inadmissible due to lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.

A statement by the court said the judgment was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki.

It added: “The court recognised its jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved potential human rights violations within a member-state, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol.

“However, the court found the claim inadmissible on grounds that it failed to meet the victim status requirement essential for litigation under Article 10(d) of the same Protocol.

“In its findings, the court said that SERAP claimed to be acting in public interest, citing previous incidents of terrorism in the region, including attacks on educational institutions and transportation services.

“However, the court determined that the case did not meet the criteria for a public interest action, or actio popularis, which requires that the alleged violations affect a large, indeterminate segment of the public or the general public itself.

“The Court highlighted that: The victims of the March 28 attack were identifiable individuals rather than an indeterminate public group, making the claim unsuitable as a public interest litigation.

“The reliefs sought, including specific monetary compensation, were directed at the identifiable victims of the attack rather than the public at large.

“Members of the three-member panel of the court were Honourable Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves(presiding judge), Honorable Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (panel member), and Honorable Justice Dupe Atoki (judge rapporteur).”