Eleven years after the killing of six young men and a woman allegedly by men of the Nigerian Police, there is yet to be delivered a verdict following the trial of men suspected to be complicit in cutting the lives of these young ones short. Exactly on June 7/8, 2005, Ifeanyi Ozo, Chinedu Meniru, Isaac Ekene, Paul Ogbonna, Anthony Nwokike and Tina Arebun met their sudden demise. And their killing was greeted by an unprecedented public outcry and the media leading the orchestra in calling that the policemen be summarily tried and executed. Specifically, the prosecution charged Ibrahim [1st defendant], along with Othman Abdulsalam [at large], Nicholas Zakaria, Ezekiel Acheneje, Emmanuel Baba and Sadiq Salami, 2nd to 6th defendants respectively for “agreeing to do or cause to be done an illegal act and therefore conspired amongst yourself to commit felony to wit: Culpable Homicide Punishable with death by agreeing to kill” the six Igbo traders. As far as many people, including families of the deceased, were concerned those accused were guilty as charged and there was no need to waste time on some lengthy trial when it is clear to everyone that these people were the killers. Of course, their position clearly negates the mandatory constitutional provision that guarantees every accuse person the liberty of “presumption of innocence” and the legal principle that he who alleges must prove.
The law, which deals with details and evidence is surely not the turf of members of the public. Only lawyers and judges are condemned to look at the law and not the sentiment expressed by the public on cases. Little wonder, often times, those at the wrong end of public outcries and sentiments decry this situation, which they quickly tag “media trial” as they worry that such media trial may weigh in the mind of the judges in arriving at their decisions. The trial of the six people killed [Apo 6] had every inch the same flavour and slant. Even to the blind and deaf, the wave of media coverage on the Apo Six debacle especially in the early months of the trial could not pass unnoticed as the media was awash with many commentators and opinion moulders, calling for the summary trial and execution of the accused persons in what was decried and described as an “unfair” media trial by family of the accused police men, who felt that prejudicial statements were being made to influence the court trial. While one cannot but take cognisance of the concern of the accused persons and their families over “the media trial”, it is gratifying to note that the symbol of justice is the statue of a woman blindfolded, which in import, means judges are blind to all extraneous and external commentaries in the media and focused solely on the case before them as expoused and presented by all counsel in the matter. At least, that is what is expected of judges; to do justice without fear of favour, devoid of any ill will towards any party. It is therefore instructive for all interested parties to be concerned about how the prosecution handled the court trial, knowing that the 1999 constitution as amended and the Criminal Procedure Code [CPC] places the burden of proof and indeed proof beyond reasonable doubt on it.
As one who has followed the trial from beginning to end and is awaiting judgement, I can categorically say I do not envy the situation the trial Judge, Justice Ishaq Bello has found himself, especially given the burden he has to balance public expectation with substantial justice. As earlier explained, the public is ignorant of the law and in a society where, people are given to accusing a judge of taking bribe when he delivers a judgment that goes contrary to their expectation, it places on the shoulders of a judge with a good reputation, the burden to protect himself from being rubbished by unfounded allegations of bribe taking. That is why I do not envy Justice Bello, the trial Judge and of course, Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory. It is no doubt a dilemma to have to balance public expectation with doing substantial and substantive justice. In such a situation, more than the deep knowledge of law, which Justice Bello is reputed for, he needs courage to ignore media trial and verdicts and focus solely on the trial which he sat over. What is key is the evidence before him and not the one before the media, which surely has no place in law. Moreover, aside the ignorance of the public as to the workings of the law, they never came to court and so never followed the trial besides the peripheral reports from the media, which fall short of analysis the blow by blow, minute by minute account of the trial. They were therefore not able to know whether or not the prosecution did a good job to establish beyond any iota of doubt the guilt of all the accused persons.
For instance, they were not in court to note that although prosecution brought forth thirteen witnesses, all the witnesses testified to the fact that the 1st accused person, who was then a Deputy Commissioner of Police [DCP], Danjuma Ibrahim never fired a gun shot. They also were not in court, so they could not also have been aware that the prosecution failed to bring in a forensic expert to analyse the rifles allegedly used in the killing of the Apo six. The investigators must take ample blame for this too because there is no investigation report which conveyed an information of a forensic analysis that showed that the fingerprints of the 1st accused person or indeed any of the accused persons was taken to establish their culpability. And the prosecution did not lead any witness in evidence to remedy that damaging blunder between it and the investigation team. There was also no evidence that the bullets expended and unexpended in the riffles allegedly used were counted at any time. The investigation team failed in that regard and although the prosecution team led by Chris Uche [SAN] and Mike Osuman [SAN] called thirteen witnesses, it did not lead any in evidence to remedy that shortcoming. The public was also neither aware that evidence was led by the defence to show that the police were on the trail of armed robbers who attacked the home of the then Director General of NEMA nor that the vehicle the deceased were driving had the plate number of a vehicle earlier stolen from a pastor. They were also not aware that the 3rd to 6th accused person testified that the 1st accused neither ordered them to shoot nor had a meeting where they agreed to kill the six persons. And in the final written address filed by Rickey Tarfa [SAN], counsel for the 1st defendant, he did not fail to highlight the failure of the prosecution team to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt thus: “The contradictions in the prosecution witnesses evidence, the failure to call vital witness, which is a forensic expert on finger prints, to analyse whether the fingerprints of the first defendant were on the AK 47 rifle of the 1st prosecution witness, have created a doubt in the evidence of the prosecution. It is trite law that where there is doubt in the case of the prosecution, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the defendant. We submit that if there are no fingerprints of the 1st defendant on the PW1’s AK 47 rifle and no evidence proffered by the prosecution to sustain the charge against the 1st defendant, the court must acquit. We urge your Lordship to discharge and acquit the 1st defendant.”
But in his written address, the lead prosecution counsel Chris Uche [SAN] prayed the court to rule that the complaint had proved its case against all the defendants beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. Uche said: “We most humbly urge your Lordship with all reverence and sense of responsibility to return a verdict of guilty on all the defendants accordingly.”
Justice Bello has fixed Thursday, March 9 to deliver his verdict, after failing to do so on February 13. Judgment on the matter has now been scheduled for Thursday, March 9 by the court. And with all the attention and public interest, one cannot envy the judge who has to be guided by two principles of law – 1. That justice should not just be done, but should been seen to done and 2. The enunciation of Lord Alfred Denning that it is better for 99 guilty people to be set free than for one innocent person to suffer unjustly. Justice Bello needs to be as courageous as always to reach a – well considered decision on the evidence brought before him without paying much heed to sentiments on either side. In the end, may the interest of justice alone be served.
Ogechukwu Izu, a lawyer based in Owerri
