LAGOS – In a dramatic turn of events, yesterday, at a Lagos High Court, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, former Chief Security Officer to late General Sani Abacha was confronted with his October 13 1999 statement he made to the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) where he admitted supplying the guns that killed Chief M.K.O. Abiola’s wife, Kudirat.
In his written statement which he was asked to read in the open court by the prosecution, he said he supplied the guns used in the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola but they were not meant for the murder.
Major Al-Mustapha, who is on trial for the alleged murder of Kudirat however told a Lagos High Court that he made the statement under duress. He said the statement was not his own but that of the SIP because it was dictated to him.
Under cross examination yesterday by the prosecution led by Mr. Lawal Pedro, SAN, he told the court that he met Sofolahan, late Kudirat’s aide for the first time in March 1998 in Lagos when some youths organized a one-million-man match in support of the administration of the late Abacha and later at the SIP in Abuja contrary to his claim in the said statement that he was introduced to Sofolahan by one Alhaji Sarki Sasa in Abuja to serve as informant, to the government.
‘I made it under duress’
Denying the contents in his rejected statement, marked ‘ID2’ made on the13th of October, 1999 at the Special Investigation Panel (SIP), Al-Mustapha said , “I made it under duress, physical and serious torture. This is an SIP statement, not my own. I only made it to save my family, my life and that of my younger brother. I made 28 statements including this one under severe torture. I had to give up and succumb to the dictation of the SIP.”
Subsequently, the prosecution’s counsel sought to tender the statement as an exhibit but the defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo objected to it.
In his submissions while opposing the tendering of the document, Ojo said where a witness is to be contradicted pursuance to Section 209 of the Evidence Act through cross-examination; the counsel cross-examining must state clearly the purpose for which the statement is being sought to be tendered.
He said, “The counsel cross-examining must state that the previous statement is being tendered for the purpose of shaking the credibility of the witness. Where this is not done, the statement will be inadmissible”.
Ojo further submitted that the statement cannot be tendered during cross-examination of the defendant, owing to the fact that he has been consistently saying that the document was a product of torture and that he was forced against his wish to write it.
He also argued that the court’s ruling on the document was not for it to be tendered in evidence noting that the correct position of the law was that any statement of an accused person sought to be used against him for any purpose whatsoever can be objected to on the ground that it was not made voluntarily.
“The whole purport of the contention is that it is not permissible for the prosecution to seek to tender a statement which voluntariness has been challenged by the accused person under examination”, he added.
While referring to Section 189(3) of the Evidence Act, Ojo alleged that the witness will suffer substantial prejudice that can occasion great miscarriage of justice if the statement sought to be tendered was admitted as an exhibit.
In his argument, the prosecution’s counsel, Pedro(SAN) drew the attention of the court to Section 37 of the Evidence Act which stated that any statement made by an accused person was admissible except it is confessional. He said the action of the witness in denying the statement confers admissibility on the document.
He also argued that the witness had given evidence in respect of the statement during his evidence-in-chief where he said it is his “visa” to go to Lagos. This, according to him makes it mandatory for the prosecution to tender the statement.
Ruling on the admissibility of the document, Justice Dada held, “the document being not a confessional statement is admissible. The defendant has even made a retraction and as such is not qualified to be subject to trial within trial”, she added. The document was later on admitted as an exhibit ‘ID5’.
After the statement was admitted, Al-Mustapha was asked to read it, where he explained how he met Sofolahan and talked about the issue of gun allegedly given to Sgt. Barnabas Jabila, (a.k.a Sgt. Rogers),
used in executing the late Kudirat.
“The arms and ammunition did not come from me”
Al-Mustapha said, “The arms and ammunition, that is, Uzi gun SMG with 9MM rounds with silencer did not come from me. Though, Barnabas Jabila had earlier on said that Mohammed Abacha was there when I gave him my personal ammunition. It could be true that I showed him my arms for cleaning which used to be my pattern of cleaning my arms whenever we come back from range exercise but certainly I did not give him my personal arms to kill Alhaja Kudirat Abiola. ”
Al-Mustapha also denied giving evidence in favour of the 2nd defendant, Lateef Shofolahan.
“I didn’t give evidence in favour of the 2nd defendant. That will amount to buying me over. I was a witness to him in the trial within trial. I chose to assist the court as a witness on oath in support of the fact”, he said.
Speaking further on Abacha’s son, Al-Mustapha told the court that “Mohammed Abacha was arrested because he was to be quizzed over the missing of his father’s money. Part of the money was released and others shared by people.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayIn his written statement which he was asked to read in the open court by the prosecution, he said he supplied the guns used in the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola but they were not meant for the murder.
Major Al-Mustapha, who is on trial for the alleged murder of Kudirat however told a Lagos High Court that he made the statement under duress. He said the statement was not his own but that of the SIP because it was dictated to him.
Under cross examination yesterday by the prosecution led by Mr. Lawal Pedro, SAN, he told the court that he met Sofolahan, late Kudirat’s aide for the first time in March 1998 in Lagos when some youths organized a one-million-man match in support of the administration of the late Abacha and later at the SIP in Abuja contrary to his claim in the said statement that he was introduced to Sofolahan by one Alhaji Sarki Sasa in Abuja to serve as informant, to the government.
‘I made it under duress’
Denying the contents in his rejected statement, marked ‘ID2’ made on the13th of October, 1999 at the Special Investigation Panel (SIP), Al-Mustapha said , “I made it under duress, physical and serious torture. This is an SIP statement, not my own. I only made it to save my family, my life and that of my younger brother. I made 28 statements including this one under severe torture. I had to give up and succumb to the dictation of the SIP.”
Subsequently, the prosecution’s counsel sought to tender the statement as an exhibit but the defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo objected to it.
In his submissions while opposing the tendering of the document, Ojo said where a witness is to be contradicted pursuance to Section 209 of the Evidence Act through cross-examination; the counsel cross-examining must state clearly the purpose for which the statement is being sought to be tendered.
He said, “The counsel cross-examining must state that the previous statement is being tendered for the purpose of shaking the credibility of the witness. Where this is not done, the statement will be inadmissible”.
Ojo further submitted that the statement cannot be tendered during cross-examination of the defendant, owing to the fact that he has been consistently saying that the document was a product of torture and that he was forced against his wish to write it.
He also argued that the court’s ruling on the document was not for it to be tendered in evidence noting that the correct position of the law was that any statement of an accused person sought to be used against him for any purpose whatsoever can be objected to on the ground that it was not made voluntarily.
“The whole purport of the contention is that it is not permissible for the prosecution to seek to tender a statement which voluntariness has been challenged by the accused person under examination”, he added.
While referring to Section 189(3) of the Evidence Act, Ojo alleged that the witness will suffer substantial prejudice that can occasion great miscarriage of justice if the statement sought to be tendered was admitted as an exhibit.
In his argument, the prosecution’s counsel, Pedro(SAN) drew the attention of the court to Section 37 of the Evidence Act which stated that any statement made by an accused person was admissible except it is confessional. He said the action of the witness in denying the statement confers admissibility on the document.
He also argued that the witness had given evidence in respect of the statement during his evidence-in-chief where he said it is his “visa” to go to Lagos. This, according to him makes it mandatory for the prosecution to tender the statement.
Ruling on the admissibility of the document, Justice Dada held, “the document being not a confessional statement is admissible. The defendant has even made a retraction and as such is not qualified to be subject to trial within trial”, she added. The document was later on admitted as an exhibit ‘ID5’.
After the statement was admitted, Al-Mustapha was asked to read it, where he explained how he met Sofolahan and talked about the issue of gun allegedly given to Sgt. Barnabas Jabila, (a.k.a Sgt. Rogers),
used in executing the late Kudirat.
“The arms and ammunition did not come from me”
Al-Mustapha said, “The arms and ammunition, that is, Uzi gun SMG with 9MM rounds with silencer did not come from me. Though, Barnabas Jabila had earlier on said that Mohammed Abacha was there when I gave him my personal ammunition. It could be true that I showed him my arms for cleaning which used to be my pattern of cleaning my arms whenever we come back from range exercise but certainly I did not give him my personal arms to kill Alhaja Kudirat Abiola. ”
Al-Mustapha also denied giving evidence in favour of the 2nd defendant, Lateef Shofolahan.
“I didn’t give evidence in favour of the 2nd defendant. That will amount to buying me over. I was a witness to him in the trial within trial. I chose to assist the court as a witness on oath in support of the fact”, he said.
Speaking further on Abacha’s son, Al-Mustapha told the court that “Mohammed Abacha was arrested because he was to be quizzed over the missing of his father’s money. Part of the money was released and others shared by people.
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