Two Civil Society Organisations, Human Rights Writers Association (HURIWA) and Society for Civic Education and Gender Equity (SOCEGE), has faulted Justice Yusuf Halilu’s conviction of Maryam Sanda for the death of her husband.
The National Coordinator, HURIWA, Mr. Emmanuel Onwubiko, and the Advocacy Manager, SOCEGE, Mary Ogochukwu Aniefuna, disclosed this during a joint press briefing by HURIWA and SOCEGE on the conviction of Maryam Sanda, Wednesday, at the NUJ Press Centre, Utako.
Onwubiko, who read the test of the briefing said: “It is with deep concern and a high sense of responsibility that we have called this press conference to address matters arising from the judgment which convicted Maryam Sanda on charges of culpable homicide following the death of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello.
“Last Monday, Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Abuja High Court convicted Maryam for the death of her husband based on circumstantial evidence whereas it is the law of this nation that the charge of murder or culpable homicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“It is curious why a judge would trifle with an offence of culpable homicide, which attracts death by choosing to draw conclusions of guilt based on hearsay.”
He said, “We must point out that no witness testified to seeing Maryam stab her husband, no murder weapon was tendered by the police in evidence, no confessional statement was made by Maryam or anyone else for that matter and no two of the six police witnesses corroborated each other’s testimonies to the effect that Maryam killed Bilyaminu.
“So, what evidence did Justice Halilu rely on to convict Maryam apart from circumstantial evidence? This is not the position of the law. The law is that no person shall be convicted for the offence of murder, which attracts capital punishment based on circumstantial evidence.
“It is our unequivocal view that Justice Halilu breached the letters and process of the law in reaching a decision to convict Maryam Sanda on the charge of taking her husband’s life. Maryam had filed a preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court to try her, but the judge misdirected himself by refusing to even deliver a ruling.
“Instead, he treated Maryam’s preliminary objection with disregard and proceeded to deliver his judgment. This action by the judge has denied the judgment of any legitimacy because it is tantamount to abuse of due and lawful process. “If properly weighed, that decision to ignore Maryam’s objection shows prejudicial sentiments and bias of the judge against Maryam and amounts to her being denied her constitutional right to fair hearing.
“The judge committed a fatal blunder when he failed to consider the preliminary objection and rule on it one way or the other before delivering his judgment.”
According to him, “We advise them to make this a number one ground of appeal as I believe it is a settled principle in our law that without fair hearing a proceeding is flawed and incurably defective.”
On her part, Ms Aniefuna, said: “When we think of the two little kids of Bilyaminu and Maryam both under two years, all we think of is the doctrine of double jeopardy.
“We know that in our laws double jeopardy is prohibited. The kids have lost their father in an unfortunate circumstance, should they lose their mother too? Can we think about these kids selfishly for a moment?
“Do we know the psychological trauma and the psychosocial problems that having both parents killed in this manner would have on them? We appeal to our common humanity. Let us put these children first in our consideration.”
