Closure to case of Hamza Al-Mustapha and 1 other

The court in January 2012 found Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan guilty for the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola committed on June 4, 1996. It was their appeal against that conviction that was determined on Friday July 12, 2013 by the Court of Appeal. Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan spent 14 years in detention, as their trials went through […]

The court in January 2012 found Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan guilty for the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola committed on June 4, 1996. It was their appeal against that conviction that was determined on Friday July 12, 2013 by the Court of Appeal. Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan spent 14 years in detention, as their trials went through many phases occasioned either by unnecessary technicalities from prosecuting counsels or by intrigues by defendants, leading at different occasions to trials-within-trials.
The Court of Appeal in the lead judgment delivered by Justice Rita Pemu and supported by two others, presiding Justice Amina Augie and Justice Fatima Akinbami, held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that “there was no straight circumstantial locus that Al-Mustapha conspired with anybody to murder the victim”.
Some of the factors outlined in the ruling as reasons the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as ruling of the lower court could not be validly be relied upon, include the fact that a principal witness who testified before the lower court that the bullet extracted from the forehead of the deceased was white, neither produced the bullet for cross examination nor appeared in court to prove it. Moreover, the fact that two principal witnesses later retracted their earlier confessional statements made to the police, stating that they were cajoled by the prosecution to indict Al-Mustapha with a promise to give them monetary gratification, illustrates the challenges that characterized procedures at the lower court. Justice Pemu also decried how a principal witness, who was initially arrested as a co-defendant, turned up later as prosecution witness.
The judgement contained expressions of dismay over the poor manner in which a criminal case like this one was handled, and noted that the police did not conduct proper investigations in it. The trial lasted longer than it should, Justice Pemu observed. In fact, that delay could have accounted for the political dimensions that so coloured the trial.
In every judgment, there is naturally bound to be an aggrieved party. Many, especially on the side of late Kudirat Abiola’s family as well as associates of the late philanthropist and politician, would understandably not be happy with the outcome of this trial. That should be expected.
Nevertheless, the verdict should be seen as a judgment based on the strength of the evidence before the presiding justices. Still, the verdict does not foreclose the need to intensify the search for those who killed the Mrs Abiola. It should also not preclude the Nigeria Police from probing the case further, with some of the leads in their possession, in order to get on to the killers of the late politician’s wife. And if the Lagos State Solicitor General feels there is any new piece of evidence that could lead to a conviction, nothing stops the prosecution from tendering it and asking that the case be reopened. In the meantime, and until that happens, the responsible conduct and best course of action is for all parties to respect decision of the nation’s justice system, imperfect though it might sometimes prove to be, as expressed in this case.