Adesope after and before acid attack

Acid attack: Bringing justice down on Lateefat Adesope’s assailant

STEPHEN UBIMAGO

When love turns sour, people react in different ways. Not infrequently, many resort to cathartic sobbing, while others take a descent into depression, which could manifest in a wide spectrum of extreme behaviours, from over-eating to instant reclusiveness or even contemplating suicide.

Still, others turn to violence particularly targeted at their estranged lovers. It is thus not uncommon to read screaming headlines with such captions as, “Man stabs banker wife to death;” or even “Jilted woman poisons fiance.”

Recently the story of how Oscar Pistorius, a South African Olympic gold medallist, allegedly shot his girlfriend to death made global headlines that in its March 11 edition, Time magazine would publish a cover story titled, “Pistorius and South Africa's Culture of Violence.”

His, however, is nearly typical rather than exceptional to the effect that best of lovers could turn the worst of enemies.

The tragic downside to it, nonetheless, is that in most of the love-turned-sour violence, women are ninety per cent of the times victims of the most extremes of attacks.

It has thus been said that the line between love and hate is tenuous.

Echoing the point in one of his numerous hit songs, Legendary Bob Marley sang quite sonorously but instructively that “your best friend could be your worst enemy.”

For whatever could have made a couple who seemingly were once in love to instantly drift emotionally far apart as to warrant one bathing the other with acid to the face could not but prove Marley very right.

Such is the painful story of Lateefat Adesope, 23.

A resident of 30, Chief Rasaki Aboro Street, Iyana Ipaja, and currently a student at the Blind Centre in Oshodi, Adesope previously trained as a cloth seller at Oshodi Market following her completion of Ordinary National Diploma (OND) at Osun State Polytechnic, Ire in 2009.

She had put her pursuit of Higher National Diploma (HND) on hold for want of means, she indicated.

Being led in evidence by prosecuting state counsel, Mr. O. Oke, at a Lagos High Court in Ikeja, presided by Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo, Adesope testified that her tragedy resulted from a decision she made to discontinue her year-old love affair with estranged boyfriend, Musiliu Olokode, and her balls to communicate same to him.

She is a blind woman today, her face mangled in disfigurement resulting from an acid attack on her allegedly by her former boyfriend.

According to the young woman, “I told him I was no longer interested in the relationship. I started avoiding him; he didn’t understand. I told him I had no feelings for him again. I told him point-blank in December, 2011 that I was no more interested in the relationship. Then he poured acid on me.”

Adesope testified that her relationship with the defendant started in 2010 ending, describing the circumstances that brought her and Olokode into a love tango.

She said that she and Olokode lived in the same area at Aboru, Iyana Ipaja, Lagos. While operating a DSTV viewing centre close to her mother’s shop, a mama-put in local parlance, the defendant became her mother’s regular patron as he frequently ate out there.

“He often saw me at my mother’s shop in the evenings and took interest in me, indicating same with his often flirtatious call of ‘my wife’ each time he saw me,” she said.

Interestingly Olokode hardly came across as capable of extreme violent conduct, let alone capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a woman he loved.

Upon cross-examination by Mrs. A. Adeyemi, counsel to the defendant, Lateefat admitted that Olokode splashed her affection while their affair lasted.

“Were both of you in love?” defence counsel asked her.

“Yes,” she replied.

“He converted to Islam because he was in love with you, right?”

“Yes. He was born a Muslim though, but later converted to Christianity. He returned to Islam because of me.”

“Did he take care of you?”

“Partially; yes.”

“Did he exhibit any violent behaviour before?”

“He didn’t.”

For a man who displayed hints of chivalry towards his beau, the irony that the beast still lurked within that could be hatched at the point of provocation seems totally farfetched.

Thus in cross-examining Lateefat, defence counsel did her best to play that card by trying to impugn the credibility of the testimony given in evidence by Lateefat to the effect that Olokode couldn’t possibly be her assailant.

The challenge is that Lateefat herself did not exactly pick the full physical profile or, put simply, see who her assailant was, for he chose quite an auspicious hour of the day to carry out the dastardly act – early morning hours when as yet the day was dark and could provide a shield.

She however, testified that she suspected Olokode on the strength that she recognised his voice.

She said, “On December 30, 2011, around 6. 00 a.m., I heard him (Olokode) call my name. As I turned to answer his call, he poured the acid on me.”

Prying further, prosecuting counsel asked, “You said you heard him call you name?”

“Yes he called my name ‘Lateefa.’ As I turned back to look he immediately poured the acid on my face,” she said.

“I heard the cup with which he did the act fall to the ground. And he immediately ran away.”

“Is it possible for one to mistake one person’s voice for another person’s?” defence counsel asked Lateefat.

“Yes,” she said, “but I am not mistaken about the voice I heard. It was Musiliu’s.”

“When did this incident take place?”

“It took place on December 30, 2011, at about 6 a.m.”

“When he called your name was it loud or low?”

“In between loud and low.”

“He did not say anything other than calling your name?”

“Yes.”

“You did not see him exactly?”

“Yes.”

The point that Adesope’s assailant was smart, intending to deal the act and disappear into thin air anonymous, was echoed in the testimony given by prosecution witness Amusa Ayinla while being led in evidence by the state prosecutor.

Ayinla lives in the neighbourhood where the incident took place. He said the defendant is well known to him, since he operated a TV viewing centre in the area then.

“The viewing centre is beside Lateefa’s house,” he told the court, adding that the girl is his late friend’s daughter.

“Cast your mind to December 30, 2011. What happened on that date?” prosecution counsel asked.

“The day was a Friday. On the morning of that day, I heard Lateefa shouting. I demanded to know what was happening to her,” Ayinla said.

“What time of the day was that?”

“Around 6 a.m.”

“Prior to the incident, could Lateefa see perfect?”

“Yes, she could see.”

“At the exact time you heard Lateefa’s cry did you see anyone other than her?”

“No.”

“Did you hear any voice other than Lateefa’s?”

“None.”

Other than Lateefa’s claim of positively identifying the voice of her assailant as that of Olokode’s, the grey area respecting an exact, positive identification of the assailant’s person, neither by the complainant nor any other witness, will doubtless task both the ingenuity of the prosecution and the deftness of Justice Onigbanjo in putting a final nail to whether or not Olokode is guilty as charged.

It indeed affords the defence a foothold on the “reasonable doubt” escape route, since if the prosecution fails to discharge the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that Olokode did in fact commit the offense of inflicting grievous bodily harm on Lateefa, judgment may go the way of the defendant.

Meanwhile Olokode has pleaded not guilty to the charge of “maliciously administering poison with intent to harm” contrary to section 337 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

According to the said s. 337, “Any person who unlawfully, and with intent to injure or annoy another, causes any poison or other noxious thing to be administered or taken by, any person, and thereby endangers his life, or does him some grievous harm, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.”

However, can it reasonably be said that it was no more than mere coincidence that the incident took place within twenty-four hours of Lateefa’s repudiation of their relationship?

Whatever the persuasion may be, defence counsel did her best to play the reasonable doubt game to the fullest.

In the course of cross-examining Lateefa, she furtively mooted other possibilities regarding where the attack could have come from.

“Before you met him, did you go out with another person called Debo?” defence counsel asked Lateefa.

“No,” she retorted.

“In the course of dating him, you recall some people met you and warned you to stop dating a married man.”

“Nothing like that.”

“What was your reason for deciding to stop dating the defendant?”

“I had no feelings for him anymore.”

“Just why, no reason?”

“Nothing.”

“Was he the only boyfriend you’ve had in the past?”

“No.”

“What are the names of the previous ones?”

“Can’t remember.”

“When you told him you were tired of the relationship, what was his reaction?”

“He called me and started begging me, and asking me what his offence was.”

The testimony of the police investigating office, Mrs. Sikirat Bashiru, however, tended to firm up reasonable suspicion that even if other crime theory may be entertained, Olokode remained the prime crime suspect in the instant case.

Being led in evidence by State Prosecutor Oke, Bashiru testified that she only became aware of the matter when some people came to make statements at the police station respecting the case on January 22, 2012.

She said, “On 22^nd of January, 2012, I was detailed to investigate the case by my superior. I proceeded to obtain the statements of the witnesses voluntarily.

“I visited the scene of the crime at Chief Rasak Aboru Street where I discovered traces of liquid substances splashed on the wall of the mosque.

“The suspect had apparently gone into hiding. We were able to arrest him but not before a dedicated and organised search party were trained after him.”

She affirmed that from her investigation the victim and the defendant were lovers. She stressed that her family members and the community around believe strongly that the defendant poured the acid on the hapless girl.

The defendant went missing as visits to his residence and DSTV viewing centre indicated he had taken flight as they were under lock and key.

The determined search for the defendant took the police search party to different locations in and outside of Lagos as well as having to meet different people some of whom had to sign undertaking before the production of the suspect could be made possible.

Therefore, arising from the testimony of the IPO is a legion of questions including why the suspect took to flight if his hands were clean?

How come there is common belief among members of the community among whom he lived as well as among members of the victim’s family that the defendant is responsible for the attack on Lateefa Adesope?

Could it be that Lateefa had intuited some grave character flaw in the defendant, which made her decide against continuing her relationship with her alleged assailant?

It is significant that the couple not only were devotees of the same religion, the defendant having converted to Islam perhaps to convince his beau of his willingness to do anything for her, but were also worshippers at the same mosque were the attack took place.

In any case the incidence of acid attack on women by men who feel jilted is by no means rare.

Pakistan, for example, tops the list of incidence of acid attacks on women. In fact, nearly 150 incidents of acid-attacks is said to take place every year in Pakistan.

A report entitled “Acid Terrorism against Women in Pakistan”, appeared on December 12, 2009, and presents some incidents of this horrific crime.

The story of the acid attack on one Fakhra Yunus in Pakistan is fairly fresh in mind. On March 24, 2012 she jumped out of her sixth-floor apartment in Italy, 13 years after her attack.

 
According to a neighbor, Yunus was last seen looking at her marred face in the mirror and weeping. A former prostitute, Yunus was 22 when acid was thrown on her — allegedly by her husband.

Yunus’ attack became high-profile after she attracted the notice of Pakistani writer and activist Tehmina Durrani, who wrote “My Feudal Lord,” a searing indictment of women’s role in Muslim society.

Durrani helped Yunus move to Italy, where she received dozens of plastic surgeries and intensive counseling.

Lateefat Adesope’s own story mustn’t end like Yunus’. Justice must be done in her matter.

 
Sadly, however, at its last hearing that took place last week, scarcely was any NGO catering to the needs of hapless women like her represented in court, at least to help press her case to its logical terminus.

The matter has been adjourned till December 12 for continued hearing.

  

Immunity Clause doesn't Shield Serving Govs, President from Investigation

Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN

Aside from sitting on the board of a number of blue chip companies in Nigeria, Professor Taiwo Osipitan, a seasoned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) teaches Criminal and Constitutional Law, as well as Law of Evidence at the University of Lagos. He is the head of department of Public Law at the university as well. In this interview with STEPHEN UBIMAGO, he discusses the poor adaptability of legislative instruments in Nigeria to ever increasing new developments, saying the National Assembly should be blamed for the trend. He also touched on the controversial subject of immunity clause...

What do law reforms really entail?

Law reforms involve periodic review of the law. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that the law will need to respond to developments in society. That is, a law that is good for society some twenty years ago may become outdated because of developments in society. For example, when we began with the Evidence Act and Criminal Code, nobody knew about electronic typewriter, as they were non-existent then; nobody knew about the email; what we had then was the telegraph. Nobody knew about e-contract, e-evidence, etc. But suddenly, computer and electronic devices came into being. By the time those laws were enacted, the makers of the law hardly contemplated those developments. These developments necessitate the need to go back to the drawing board, and see how the law could be amended to respond to developments in society.

Are state institutions proactive enough in adapting Nigeria’s laws to new developments?

No. My experience has been that our laws are not responding quickly enough to developments in society. Our laws have most of the time trailed behind. We are left behind such that we do not know whether to argue that judges should embark on judicial activism aimed at ensuring that there are no lacunae in the laws.

Respecting tardiness in adapting the laws to new developments, which institutions of state may be blamed?

The lawmakers, of course. There are three arms of government: the executive, the lawmaking body and the judiciary. It is the duty of the lawmakers to enact laws; the executive execute laws; and of course, maybe the executive should share in the blame in the sense that the executive can identify areas where reforms are needed and sponsor bills, called executive bills, to the National Assembly. But since the primary duty of lawmaking is that of the National Assembly, we expect them to review the law periodically.

What about the Nigerian Law Reforms Commission (NLRC)

Yes, that’s why I said the executive should also share in the blame. The Law Reforms Commission has the responsibility of researching into our laws, and seeing the areas reforms are needed. But I tell you something, they are also handicapped. I know, for example, that there was a bill for insurance law reform, which was more or less sponsored by the National Insurance Commission (NICOM), the regulatory body of insurance practice in Nigeria. They sponsored the bill based on researches, and debates here and there on how to have an all inclusive insurance law that will address the challenges of the insurance industry and business in Nigeria. I believe it has been there for three years now before the National Assembly; yet they’ve not been able to pass the bill into law. Again, I’m aware that ICAN had also had cause to see how they can amend the ICAN Law. And indeed there was a public hearing on it some four years ago. We have yet to see the bill. So I am saying that the lawmaking arm of government at the central level is not responding as quickly as possible. Or maybe what they really need is a sub-committee of the National Assembly devoted entirely to the subject of law reforms. So if you have them in place, it will become their duty to push out these reforms as sponsored by the executive, etc. Perhaps we need such a committee to drive the said reforms with greater ease.

Despite the cache of anti-corruption legislations, namely, ICPC and the EFCC Acts, the Money Laundering and Forfeiture Acts, Criminal and Penal Codes, among others, Nigeria’s leading challenge as a state still remains corruption. Where are we not getting it right?

The laws are there, I always say to people. But the ability to administer justice without fear or favour is where the problem lies. For example, the judges will only condemn or sentence people who are brought before them and against whom you have evidence. But if you look at it today, we have not even prosecuted one-hundredth of the people who are involved in corruption. Along the line, you have other people who are either not caught or who have compromised. Take it or leave it, corruption has become a cancer in the Nigerian society, such that those people who are not corrupt are seen as abnormal. So there is need for us to have change of attitude. The issue, therefore, is not about the law, but about the human beings who either apply the law or are governed by it.

Is the judiciary also corrupt?

Unfortunately, they are not immune. The cancer that is plaguing the country does not respect the judiciary. Yet I believe there are many in the bench who are not corrupt; many of them have pedigree, and are able to hold their heads above water. But unfortunately, in some courts, right from the head to the bottom, it is corruption galore. And those who are not corrupt among them, are victimised and posted to the bush indiscriminately. Once the head, for example, the chief judge of a state is corrupt, it is not difficult for corruption to trickle down; and those who are not corrupt there are victimised. And it is so bad in some states that there is no difference between the chief judge, the judiciary and the executive. There is so much unholy romance between the judiciary in some states and the executive such that people seem to have lost confidence in such state courts, and they now have cause to start looking for how to take their cases to either the Federal High Court or outside the state. But by and large majority of the judges in the country are okay. The very few corrupt ones are the ones giving the judiciary a bad name.

We learn there are certain gaps in the criminal procedure rules, which defence lawyers manipulate to frustrate trial lawyers. What are these gaps, and how can we plug them in the light of law reforms?

Well there are no laws that are completely gap-free. We are, however, obligated to plug the gaps should they prove to be hindering the cause of justice. Take interlocutory appeals and stay of proceeding, for example. Somebody applies to quash a charge, and it is refused. It would appear that the EFCC Act had taken care of it. But really the Act is talking about offences under the EFCC Act for which there can be no stay of proceeding. Indeed offences under the Act are there; they do not extend to the Criminal Code and others. Then again, the right of appeal is a right given under the Constitution. The EFCC Act is an existing law; therefore, if there is a provision like that, which tends to limit, affect or hinder the full exercise of the constitutional right of appeal, it’s null and void, except we go back to the Constitution and insert that provision there outlawing interlocutory appeals. Or if it’s not outlawed, such provision should state that upon an interlocutory appeal, there will be no stay of proceeding. Until you do that, there is a problem. There is also a gap from the viewpoint of defence lawyers. They can’t trust some of the judges that preside over criminal trials. Some of them are timid such that they are swayed by public opinion. There are some convictions that ought not to take place at all. But people have been convicted simply because they’d already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Judges are now afraid of what the public will say.

Is that not also the problem of law?

Not really. Note, members of the public, with due respect, did not study law. They don’t know anything about burden and standard of proof, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is the exclusive area of lawyers. I don’t know how a surgeon, for example, can be afraid to perform an operation, because he will be criticised by the public. I don’t know how an estate surveyor will be afraid of doing evaluation because of what the public will say. But it does appear that some of our judges are afraid of what the public will say. Yet they are learned, but the public is not learned in the area of law. When did it devolve on the public to decide who is guilty or not guilty? So defence lawyers are also being very cautious, since they cannot be too sure that decisions are based on the evidence before the court, but on prior condemnation by the public. So at every opportunity available defence lawyers go on appeal.

Let’s connect your last comment to the recent Abuja High Court judgment in which a two-year jail term with an option of N800,000 fine was passed on one John Yakubu Yusuf who is said to have stolen N27 billion belonging to the Police Pensions Fund

Well that is most unfortunate in the sense that the sentence, from my own point of view, is light. He was found guilty the way the public wanted him to be found guilty. Maybe the judge really didn’t believe, based on the evidence before him, that the man should be found guilty. But perhaps the fear of public anger made him convict him of the offence. The judgement seems like he was only providing him a window of escape.

He was tried under the Penal Code. Could he not have been tried under a far more stiff provision of a graver legislation, say, EFCC Act?

I think the Penal Code provided for seven years imprisonment. If twelve or ten or seven years jail term appears in a criminal legislation that can only mean the maximum. Meaning you cannot sentence him beyond that maximum, but you can go below. So the judge has discretion in this respect. But one will expect that the discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously in accordance with settled principles of law. But members of the public don’t know; and indeed not many lawyers know about the principle of maximum and minimum sentencing. Perhaps he would be right if he says the offence of stealing shall attract a minimum of seven years imprisonment without option of fine. If that is the case, then we can now say, yes, he has done something very, very outrageous. But we know the sentencing policy that legally he’s covered. But obviously, though covered, what may be faulted if the judge is exercising his discretion in this regard.

It has been argued that the immunity clause under s. 308 of the Constitution provides cover for governors to pursue corrupt self-enrichment. That section is anachronistic. Isn’t it?

Well, like I’ve said, everybody in Nigeria now is a lawyer, both trained and untrained. And everything is debated and settled on the pages of newspapers, which is very unfortunate. You have to look at the history behind the immunity clause. The art of governance is a superior issue. And that you do not want a situation where a governor, whilst he’s there, is looking behind him and saying, ‘I’m going to court to testify.’ So the immunity clause is not limited to criminal cases. It also applies to civil cases. Why are we singling out criminal cases? Do you want the clause also to be removed from civil cases in which case your governor is in and out of court on daily basis? What time will he have to settle down to governance? A case is fixed for Monday, which is Exco Day in Lagos State. Do you expect Governor Fashola to go and testify in court in a civil matter in which he has been sued, or in which a subpoena has been issued against him? Once you have a subpoena, you must go to court. So, for example, Governor Fashola, will then have to go to court on Exco Day – maybe two or three Excos in a quarter. Meaning he has to step down other pressing state functions, because he must give preference to the court, otherwise a case of contempt of court may arise against him. For this reason, they need one hundred per cent concentration and attention. There is a Fawehinmi’s case involving Tinubu whereby he got an order of court declaring that immunity does not extend to investigation. Thus you don’t have to wait for a governor to finish his term of office before commencing investigation on him. You can collect your evidence whilst he’s in office. And once he’s out of office, you can prosecute him.

Wouldn’t the governor use his high office to obstruct investigation?

I don’t think so. The governors are endangered species. They have more enemies in government than friends. The document they need for prosecuting them can be produced by civil servants who are aggrieved. The civil servants are the most aggrieved set of human beings around. And for no cause at all, they will bring out the evidence on demand. So you can do your investigation discretely whilst the governor is in office. It is not a perpetual immunity. But what do you find? Nobody investigates them until they leave office; by then the evidence had disappeared. There is still power to investigate. There is no immunity against investigation. They can gather the evidence when it is fresh, and wait for him. You don’t have to interrogate him. When he’s finished his office then you can proceed. But what obtains in Nigeria is that they will even arrest the person before they begin to gather evidence against him. That itself is breach of the person’s right to personal liberty. You don’t arrest until you are ready to take the person to court.  But the EFCC and other agencies, would rather first arrest, make noise on pages of newspapers before they start interrogating witnesses. That is wrong. There is no immunity against investigation. So why are they not investigating the governors?

Former Governor Peter Odili of Rivers State is said to have obtained a perpetual injunction against his appearing before a court for trial respecting his time in office. Can you throw light on this?

It’s unfortunate that such a decision can come out. But what has the prosecution done? Have they appealed the injunction? Or have they prosecuted the appeal diligently. Judges are entitled at High Court level to take decisions. It you find a decision unpalatable, the next thing to do is to go on appeal and set it aside. Not just shouting that it is unpalatable. I expect the prosecution to go ahead and appeal the decision. And that kind of decision, even if it comes before another judge, it is not binding on him; he can refuse to follow it. So it is not a precedent binding on courts of coordinate jurisdiction. It is just an isolated case.

Would you agree with the view that acts of terrorism has remained unchecked owing to inadequate laws for dealing with the menace?

I don’t think so. For example, the EFCC Act makes the work of the EFCC to include investigation and prosecution of terrorism and terrorists. In the Penal and Criminal Code, there is also provision to tackle acts of kidnapping and terrorism. A crime may not be committed if the criminal knows that if he is caught, he’ll be dealt with decisively. But what do you have? How many of them have been caught and prosecuted based on empirical evidence? In fact many of them have reportedly escaped custody. Intelligence gathering is very key.

         

Rev. King v. State: Death Penalty under renewed searchlight

Embattled Emeka Ezeugo, aka Rev. King

By STEPHEN UBIMAGO

If ever the Supreme Court reaches a decision to uphold the judgment of the Lagos Court of Appeal, which on February 1 had affirmed the death sentence passed by a trial court on Chukwuemeka Ezeugo, a.k.a. Rev. King, of the Christian Praying Assembly, he then will be one of the latest cases of convicted felons in the country whom the hangman’s noose will be dispatching to the great beyond as punishment for his offence under s. 319 of the Criminal Code that prescribes death penalty.

On January 11, 2007, Justice Joseph Oyewole, then of the Criminal Division of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja, but currently chief judge of Osun State, had sentenced King to death by hanging on six count charges of the murder of one Ann Uzoh and the attempted murder of five other devotees of his church. The judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos on February 1.

However, once the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s verdict, Barrister Olalekan Ojo, counsel to Ezeugo, did not mince words in impugning the grounds of the affirmation of the judgment, against which he promptly indicated the determination of the defence to appeal at the Supreme Court; thereby taking advantage of the residue legal corridor left to save the life of his infamous client.

Ojo filed five grounds of notice of appeal.

In the said grounds of appeal, Ojo said the appellate court erred in law in refusing the convict’s application to call additional witnesses to tender reports of forensic experts so as to show that there is no way the man, allegedly Rev. King, who ignited the matches that burnt the deceased to death, couldn’t have been torched since she was said to have been soaked in petrol, a highly inflammable matter.

Ojo maintained that the appellate court erred yet again, considering that the reason it gave in its judgment for refusing to grant the application for leave to call more witnesses was merely because the report of the forensic experts had not earlier been tendered in evidence at the trial court.

On another ground, according to him, it was wrong not to have treated the statement of the deceased as “Dying Declaration,” which is admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act as an exception to the “Hearsay Rule” to the effect that Rev. King neither bathed her with petrol nor did he ignite the matches that ended up consuming the said Ann in flames. On the contrary, the deceased maintained, the burns she sustained were from a generator explosion.

But watchers haven’t ceased to express doubts as to whether the move by the defence to find absolution for King at the apex court will achieve its objective, saying it seems an effort in futility given the antecedents of Justice Oyewole for thoroughness.

According to Ibrahim Lawal, senior special assistant to Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State on Legal and Judicial Reform, “Most of Oyewole’s judgments have been affirmed on appeal and even the few ones that had been sent back for retrial, were eventually decided the same way he had initially adjudged them.”

If Lawal’s observation is anything to go by, then the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the judgment passed at the trial, and upheld at the appellate, court could inevitably be a fait accompli.

Rev. King’s fate may have been decided. He may indeed be destined to die by hanging!

But the voices pushing for the abolition of the death penalty as a punitive measure of criminal justice are growing and winning traction the world over.

Among members of the human rights community, especially, it is maintained that capital punishment is a violation of fundamental rights.

“The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice,” says Amnesty International, a global NGO with over 3 million membership focused on human rights.

“It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. AI opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.”

The United Nations (UN) has also voiced its disavowal of the death penalty. It has continued to call on States that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on the use of capital punishment with a view to abolition, and in the meantime, to restrict the number of offences which it punishes and to respect the rights of those on death row. It has also called on States that have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it.

Interestingly, October 10, 2010 was declared the World Day against the Death Penalty. The World Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, a coalition of 108 NGOs from around the world, had set that date as the 8th World Day against the Death Penalty.

According to the abolition advocates, the justice system can never be mistake-free; hence it is inevitable that an error will be made in a capital case and an innocent person will unduly end up being executed.

Speaking in this connection, Innocence Project, a US-based litigation and public policy organisation dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA evidence, indicated that the innocence of at least 17 death-row inmates has been demonstrated since 1993.

According to them, one such exoneree, who had served 11 years in prison, came within five days of execution; while another exoneree, who had spent 17 years in prison, came within nine days of execution before receiving a stay.

Still in the US, application of the death penalty show a pattern of bias for race and class.

Blacks and Latinos are said to make up more than 55 percent of the current death row population, despite comprising only about 25 percent of the U.S. population. Besides, the vast majority of people on death row are poor.

The abolition advocates have also argued that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, insisting that life imprisonment will protect the public from repeat offenders.

In sum, capital punishment as it is applied in the United States is racist, arbitrary, and fallible. It doesn't work to deter crime either, the abolition advocates maintain.

But there is a more fundamental contention, which has been canvassed to reinforce the position of supporters of abolition.

In the aftermath of World War II, an "international bill of rights" was drafted under the UN charter called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

According to the abolition advocates, since Article 3 of the UDHR – a provision that is replicated in other multilateral instruments like the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR), which has been domesticated into the country’s body of laws – provides that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” the death penalty may no longer enure without offending that provision.

For one, it makes right to life the most fundamental human right, since it constitutes the basis of access to other rights, which may be enjoyed by man.

By implication, it extinguishes the state’s right to take the life of any of its citizen for whatever reason, the “abolitionists” maintain, stressing that capital punishment also retain the additional disadvantage of being permanent or irrevocable.

Opponents of the abolition school of thought, however, have hit back to say that since members of the school have deliberately shut their eyes from the broader picture, they inevitably have sunk into the fatal error of claiming that the right to life is absolute.

They also maintain that advocates of abolition have arrogantly refused to accept that no right meant to be enjoyed by man is absolute; and that any law worth obliging compliance would allow for a derogation clause to that effect.

Thus s. 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, they say, rightly provides that, “Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.”

In this connection, an Abuja-based lawyer Garba Irunoje, has accused the “abolitionists” of being fixated on the corrective object of the penal justice system, forgetting that it also makes allowance for retributive measure in terms of the “Just Desert Theory.”

According to the “Just Desert Doctrine,” guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime.

Capturing this argument succinctly, Jesus Christ, founder of the Christian faith says, “He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword,” to the extent that no pontificating on justice can be more meaningful to a religious mind or an ordinary reasonable man than that he who wilfully takes another’s life, must have his own life denied him as well.

Irunoje puts it thus: “Retribution, and the penal measure aimed at approximating it by a sentencing court, seems to me as more akin to justice than the corrective object of punishment, which forms the heart of the arguments of advocates of abolition. And our courts are regarded as temples of justice, not merely vehicles for applying correction.”

He maintains further that “It is ironic that societies with laws that allow private citizens to own guns for self-defence, the basis of which thousands of its citizens are killed on a daily basis, are the ones seeking to deny the state the right to apply the death penalty to the deserving.”

Besides, the argument goes that by executing convicted murderers, capital punishment could serve as deterrence to potential murderers from wantonly killing people. And that deterrence is most effective when the punishment happens soon after the crime. A child, for example, learns not to put his finger in the fire, because the consequence is instant pain.

For the level of cultural refinement attained by most members of the Nigerian society, which of course is rather low, it has been said that the death penalty is warrantable for practical reasons.

For example, killing with abandon is so prevalent in many parts of the country that it appears, for many, human life in Nigeria retains no inherent value higher than that of cattle.

Hence the death penalty is a fitting answer for the murderous tendency that abounds in the country. Indeed nothing could be more offensive than the grant of a mere prison term, be it life or otherwise, to a cold-blooded serial killer, a measure the likes of Barrister Ironoje deems as rewarding criminality.

According to Fola Jesse Ojeme, a lawyer and coordinator of Justice Warehouse, an advocacy group, “A clear example of how little regard is paid to human life in Nigeria is the latest clamour, especially from the North, that amnesty (absolute pardon) should be granted Boko Haram, the deadly Islamist terror group.

“It speaks volumes that rather than frontally visit the full weight of an efficient justice system on the Islamist sect, whose terror acts, which falls within the statutory definition of murder and high treason for ostensibly levying war against the state, which has led to the death of thousands of Nigerians, the government of President Goodluck Jonathan appears to be yielding to pressure to grant the said amnesty.”

There is however a sense of cautionary note sounded in the argument by the “abolitionists” that the death penalty is irrevocable.

However, instead of deeming this as enough reason to abolish capital punishment, its supporters contend that it only makes sense to limit its application to cases of murder pursuant to s. 319 and high treason pursuant to s. 37 and 38 of the Criminal Code.

Besides, the inherent safeguards that protect the defendant from judicial arbitrariness in the adversarial system being practiced in Nigeria that says an accused person is prima facie innocent until proven guilty by a competence court after the prosecution has painstakingly discharged the burden of proving his offence beyond reasonable doubt, must be applied exhaustively.

Moreover, the fair hearing principles of nemo judex in causa sua and audi alterem partem as codified in s. 36 of the 1999 Constitution also finds extensive application in Nigerian courts, the object being to protect the defendant from being badly tried and unduly convicted.

This is complemented by the fact that the Nigerian judicature is made up of a hierarchy of courts designed to guarantee that justice is done; for in case the defendant is dissatisfied with the ruling of a trial court, redress could be sought in a higher, appellate court.

Indeed this is the route currently being taken by Rev. King as a way of meticulously engaging the corridors of justice open to him in Nigeria.

Given these safeguards in the country’s penal justice system, supporters of the death penalty say the cautionary note as sounded in the abolitionists’ refrain that death penalty is irrevocable has in fact been adequately taken care of by the nation’s justice system.

Of course, the possibility that a person could suffer conviction for an offence he or she did not commit cannot be completely ruled out, since no human institution, least of all the criminal justice system of any nation, is perfect, as it is always a work in progress.

However, it will be unrealistic to say that since there are no absolute safeguards against the conviction of an innocent person, then the death penalty should be totally abolished.

It therefore goes without saying that such a contention may be tantamount to expecting the country’s criminal justice system to miraculously rise above the ken of human limitations and become a perfectly running machine.