A human rights activist and Director of Communication and Advocacy of Make A Difference Initiative, Lemmy Ughegbe has faulted the judgment of Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Abuja High Court, which convicted Maryam Sanda of killing her husband based on circumstantial evidence.
Speaking on The Morning Show of ARISE NEWS, the human rights advocate , who said he was merely honouring the invitation of the television station to examine the verdict based on facts before the court and not sentiment said “no person should be convicted for the offence of murder, which attracts capital punishment based on circumstantial evidence.”
He sympathised with Justice Halilu, whom he described as “a courageous judge” for having the unenviable task of making a decision without substantial evidence, pointing out that the police should be blamed for doing a very shoddy investigation.
“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”, Ughegbe said on The Morning Show.
He said following the lack of weapon, confessional statement, and autopsy report, among others, the Judge fell into an “error of judgment” when he assumed the role of an Investigating Police Officer by going outside evidence before the court to reach a decision to convict Maryam Sanda.
Specifically, in Page 76 of his judgment, Justice Halilu held thus: “I have a duty thrust upon me to investigate and discover what in any particular case will satisfy the interest and demands of justice.”
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.
According to him, this forms a good ground of appeal and should be explored for the enhancement of our jurisprudence.
He also noted that having studied the – 110 page judgment of Justice Halilu, he found that the judge had stripped the judgment of legitimacy following his failure to rule on a Preliminary Objection raised by the defence team challenging the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court to try the said charge.
“Based on the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Justice Halilu had upon hearing the preliminary objection had announced that he would proceed with the trial and when it was all done, he would rule on the objection and its success or failure would determine whether or not to proceed to deliver a judgment”, he stated.
However, he noted that “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.”
“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 argued.
He 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.
“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”, he stated.
