So, what are your findings about the Al-Mustapha trial? ".. I tried to follow the High Court proceedings. First, it was clear beyond reasonable doubts that Al-Mustapha had a mission – it was to prolong that trial perhaps until many governments had passed and he would eventually be set free. He didn’t want the trial to end. He was raising motions and the court would rule over them. His lawyers turn to the appellate court; the appeal court would take its time too and give its ruling. Then, the case would proceed to the Supreme Court. He has decided to frustrate the process of getting justice done. Remember, he and (Lateef) Sofolahan were not the only ones, they were about seven. The others had found their way out because they accepted to be tried singularly for their offences. What was clear in the Court of Appeal ruling, although we don’t have the certified true copy of the judgment and cannot really speak authoritatively on what they have done, is that they said there were contradictions. My understanding of the law of evidence is that if somebody is a participant in an act and the prosecution decided to turn him over to become a prosecution witness, in circumstances like this, his evidence will have probable value and it will be accepted – which the judiciary accepted. The Court of Appeal judges didn’t face the demeanour and what we regard in law as the nuances of a witness being cross-examined. When a witness making his evidence in view, the trial court is in a position to watch him and follow up his attitude. Once such has been admitted, it has high probable value. From what I was told, judges were of the view that the witnesses had recanted. If that were to be thereason, it’s very unfortunate. Somebody must have forgotten the rudiments of evidence. And when it comes to a prosecution witness,who, perhaps, was part of the conspiracy at the instance, he certainly knew the entire story more than anyone, including the prosecution. Therefore, if he had spoken and his evidence had been admitted, and the fellow later claimed he was forced to say what he said, the Nigerian law of evidence says that such evidence remains acceptable and should be given high value. That was not what they did in that case, from what I read. We are still waiting to find out what was the final shape of their mind before they released him.... " __Chief Ayo Opadokun.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:41:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015