The much anticipated cross-examination of Hamza Al-Mustapha over the murder of Kudirat Abiola degenerated into another round of legal tussle between the prosecuting and defence counsels yesterday, as the hearings in the trial of Mr Al-Mustapha drags towards its end.
The argument ensued when the lead prosecuting counsel, Lawal Pedro, asked Al-Mustapha to read the statement which he claimed he wrote "under severe duress" at the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) set up to investigate atrocities committed under the regime of the late Sani Abacha.
Presiding judge Mojisola Dada had, on Wednesday, ruled that the witness could be questioned on the statement which was not before the court as evidence.
But Mr Al-Mustapha, in his usual forceful manner with the prosecutor, declared that "this is a statement I made under severe duress. A statement that is not my own, a statement I made in physical and psychological torture to take the SIP statement with other 28 statements to save my late father, younger brother, wife and children. I made the statement so I will come to court and fight it out." The defence lawyer objected to the cross-examination by the prosecution on a document that was not an evidence before the court. Mr Pedro then immediately sought to tender the statement as evidence before the court.
This led to protracted argument between the two lawyers, which lasted for over two hours with defence lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, talking the most of the time. He objected to the admission of the statement on the ground that the prosecution did not state the purpose of tendering the statement, which he said was to "shake the credibility of the witness (Al-Mustapha)." Mr Ojo referred to the Purpose Doctrine in criminal evidence, which states that "where a witness is to be contradicted by the cross-examining counsel, the counsel should state clearly the purpose for which the statement is sought to be tendered" to support his prayer that the statement should not be admitted.
Mr Ojo also recalled that the ruling on Wednesday only permitted questions on the statement and not tendering the statement as evidence. He warned that the court would turn itself into a "prosecutor and persecutor" if the statement was admitted.
However, in his reply, Mr Pedro argued that "any statement made by a defendant at an investigation is ordinarily admissible in evidence, except for where it is a confessional statement." He further argued that "the retraction and denial of the statement by the defendant by itself means it is not a confessional statement and that makes it admissible" referring to Mr Al-Mustapha's claim that the statement was "SIP's statement dictated to him." He urged the judge to consider the weight attached to the issue, which he called "substantial justice for the society, the deceased's family and the defendant himself." The judge ruled in favour of the prosecution, stating that "the document is admissible because of his retraction and denial." A visibly discomfited Mr Al-Mustapha again emphasised that the statement was dictated to him by the SIP.
The disputed statement
In the statement, as read out by the defendant, he denied providing any ammunition to Sergeant Rogers and that the ammunition used in for the murder did not come from him. He, however, explained the circumstances that involved arms exchange between himself and Rogers.
"I showed him my arms for cleaning, as I always do when we come back from patrol," he said. "I did not give my arms to Rogers. It must be for cleaning my arms and trusting arms to him for cleaning which is normal." The disputed statement has Mr Al-Mustapha saying "Alhaji Lateef Sofolahan was introduced to me as an informant and I intend to introduce Alhaji Lateef to Rabo Lawal." Mr Sofolahan is the personal assistant to MKO Abiola who is facing trial along with Mr Al-Mustapha over the assassination of Mrs Abiola. He is alleged to have provided information on Mrs Abiola's movement to her killers, while Rabo Lawal was the military officer alleged to have coordinated the killing.
"Rabo was selected from Dodan Barracks because he is familiar with Lagos," the statement read. "I did not send Rabo Lawal on the assignment or the attack on Rutam House and Alex Ibru." He also declared that Rabo Lawal was in Libya when the alleged attacks happened.
The cross examiner then asked Mr Al-Mustapha why he gave evidence in favour of Mr Sofolahan during the trial within trial.
The defendant replied that he was witness to him (Sofolahan) during the trials. "I chose to assist the court in support of facts and not him," he said.
He had early stated that prior to their arrest and detention together at SIP, he had only met Mr Sofolahan once in 1998, during the two million man march for Abacha's transition from a military leader to a democratic leader.
On his relationship with the son of the late Head of State, Mohammed Abacha, the statement had Mr Al-Mustapha as saying he did not discuss such issues with him, but he defined his relationship with Mohammed Abacha as "the son of General Abacha, my primary responsibility is his safety." He further revealed that Mohammed Abacha was arrested for "the seizure of his father's money but was framed into this case because they wanted that money. Part of the money was released and it was shared by some people and never returned to the national treasury." He denied any confrontation with the younger Abacha, stating "it was just when we met during our detention at the SIP that he was asked to ask me where Abacha's money is. If that is what you call confrontation." He also alleged that Mohammed's statement at SIP was written by someone else.
Another long argument then ensued between the counsels after the prosecuting counsel tendered the Supreme court ruling on Mohammed Abacha in 2002, in which Al-Mustapha's name was mentioned.
Mr Al-Mustapha interjected that the position of the Supreme Court on the case was very "indicting, incriminating, persecuting and forced to be. The entire trial was persecuting," he said.
The judge adjourned hearing on the defence's objection to having the Supreme Court ruling admitted by the court as evidence, claiming it was irrelevant to proceedings before the court.
The court premises was, once again, made lively by a gaggle of supporters of the suspect, who chanted prayers for his freedom.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayThe argument ensued when the lead prosecuting counsel, Lawal Pedro, asked Al-Mustapha to read the statement which he claimed he wrote "under severe duress" at the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) set up to investigate atrocities committed under the regime of the late Sani Abacha.
Presiding judge Mojisola Dada had, on Wednesday, ruled that the witness could be questioned on the statement which was not before the court as evidence.
But Mr Al-Mustapha, in his usual forceful manner with the prosecutor, declared that "this is a statement I made under severe duress. A statement that is not my own, a statement I made in physical and psychological torture to take the SIP statement with other 28 statements to save my late father, younger brother, wife and children. I made the statement so I will come to court and fight it out." The defence lawyer objected to the cross-examination by the prosecution on a document that was not an evidence before the court. Mr Pedro then immediately sought to tender the statement as evidence before the court.
This led to protracted argument between the two lawyers, which lasted for over two hours with defence lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, talking the most of the time. He objected to the admission of the statement on the ground that the prosecution did not state the purpose of tendering the statement, which he said was to "shake the credibility of the witness (Al-Mustapha)." Mr Ojo referred to the Purpose Doctrine in criminal evidence, which states that "where a witness is to be contradicted by the cross-examining counsel, the counsel should state clearly the purpose for which the statement is sought to be tendered" to support his prayer that the statement should not be admitted.
Mr Ojo also recalled that the ruling on Wednesday only permitted questions on the statement and not tendering the statement as evidence. He warned that the court would turn itself into a "prosecutor and persecutor" if the statement was admitted.
However, in his reply, Mr Pedro argued that "any statement made by a defendant at an investigation is ordinarily admissible in evidence, except for where it is a confessional statement." He further argued that "the retraction and denial of the statement by the defendant by itself means it is not a confessional statement and that makes it admissible" referring to Mr Al-Mustapha's claim that the statement was "SIP's statement dictated to him." He urged the judge to consider the weight attached to the issue, which he called "substantial justice for the society, the deceased's family and the defendant himself." The judge ruled in favour of the prosecution, stating that "the document is admissible because of his retraction and denial." A visibly discomfited Mr Al-Mustapha again emphasised that the statement was dictated to him by the SIP.
The disputed statement
In the statement, as read out by the defendant, he denied providing any ammunition to Sergeant Rogers and that the ammunition used in for the murder did not come from him. He, however, explained the circumstances that involved arms exchange between himself and Rogers.
"I showed him my arms for cleaning, as I always do when we come back from patrol," he said. "I did not give my arms to Rogers. It must be for cleaning my arms and trusting arms to him for cleaning which is normal." The disputed statement has Mr Al-Mustapha saying "Alhaji Lateef Sofolahan was introduced to me as an informant and I intend to introduce Alhaji Lateef to Rabo Lawal." Mr Sofolahan is the personal assistant to MKO Abiola who is facing trial along with Mr Al-Mustapha over the assassination of Mrs Abiola. He is alleged to have provided information on Mrs Abiola's movement to her killers, while Rabo Lawal was the military officer alleged to have coordinated the killing.
"Rabo was selected from Dodan Barracks because he is familiar with Lagos," the statement read. "I did not send Rabo Lawal on the assignment or the attack on Rutam House and Alex Ibru." He also declared that Rabo Lawal was in Libya when the alleged attacks happened.
The cross examiner then asked Mr Al-Mustapha why he gave evidence in favour of Mr Sofolahan during the trial within trial.
The defendant replied that he was witness to him (Sofolahan) during the trials. "I chose to assist the court in support of facts and not him," he said.
He had early stated that prior to their arrest and detention together at SIP, he had only met Mr Sofolahan once in 1998, during the two million man march for Abacha's transition from a military leader to a democratic leader.
On his relationship with the son of the late Head of State, Mohammed Abacha, the statement had Mr Al-Mustapha as saying he did not discuss such issues with him, but he defined his relationship with Mohammed Abacha as "the son of General Abacha, my primary responsibility is his safety." He further revealed that Mohammed Abacha was arrested for "the seizure of his father's money but was framed into this case because they wanted that money. Part of the money was released and it was shared by some people and never returned to the national treasury." He denied any confrontation with the younger Abacha, stating "it was just when we met during our detention at the SIP that he was asked to ask me where Abacha's money is. If that is what you call confrontation." He also alleged that Mohammed's statement at SIP was written by someone else.
Another long argument then ensued between the counsels after the prosecuting counsel tendered the Supreme court ruling on Mohammed Abacha in 2002, in which Al-Mustapha's name was mentioned.
Mr Al-Mustapha interjected that the position of the Supreme Court on the case was very "indicting, incriminating, persecuting and forced to be. The entire trial was persecuting," he said.
The judge adjourned hearing on the defence's objection to having the Supreme Court ruling admitted by the court as evidence, claiming it was irrelevant to proceedings before the court.
The court premises was, once again, made lively by a gaggle of supporters of the suspect, who chanted prayers for his freedom.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com