al-Mustapha, Sofolahan urge Court of Appeal to void conviction

By Eric Ikhilae 6 hours 27 minutes ago

Font size:  

almustapha

Condemned ex- Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the late Gen Sani Abacha, Major Hamza al-Mustapha and aide to the late Kudirat Abiola, Lateef Sofolahan have appealed Monday’s judgment by Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos High Court sentencing them to death for hanging.

In their notices of appeal filed yesterday before the Court of Appeal, Lagos, the duo described the judgment as "unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported, having regard to the totality of evidence before the trial court".

Both raised five grounds of appeal and prayed the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s decision. They urged the court to discharge and acquit them on the two counts of conspiracy and murder on which they were convicted.

Sofolahan and al-Mustapha argued, in their first ground of appeal, that the judge erred in law by holding that the contradictions in the evidence by Barnabas Jabila Mshelia (Rogers) - the second prosecution witness (PW1) and Mohammed Abdul (Katako) - the third prosecution witness (PW3) were immaterial.

They contended that the said contradiction in both witnesses’ evidence, which resulted from their recantation, were manifestly a disparagement of their evidence.

Their second ground of appeal was that the judge erred when she relied on the evidence of the first prosecution witness, Ore Falomo, a medical doctor, to the effect that the bullet extracted from the late Kudirat was a special one, not commonly seen.

They queried the judge’s decision to rely on the information by Falomo, knowing that he (Falomo) is neither a Ballistician nor an expert in that field of science.

In ground three, the appellants accused the judge of bias against them by allegedly rejection portions of Rogers’ and Katako’s testimonies that favoured them, but accepted and relied the portions that were unfavourable to them.

They also, in ground four, argued that the judge erred in law by treating the contents of their extra-judicial statements as true without first, subjecting them to the necessary tests.

SOURCE: The Nation, 1 February 2012. http://www.thenationonlineng.net