Umar had at the completion of the
prosecution’s case on May 16 argued that no prima facie case was made
against him and asked the court to quash the charges against him and set
him free. Justice Adeniyi Ademola held that the
prosecution, via the evidence led, sufficiently made a prima facie case
against the accused. “The court having held that a prima facie case has been made against the accused person, his no-case submission fails. “In the circumstance, the accused person
has a case to answer. He is hereby called upon to open his defence,”
the judge declared. The defence plans to call seven witnesses while the court adjourned to July 5 for Umar to commence his defence.
Defence lawyer, Mr.Ibrahim Umar, in his
submission on June 14, argued that the prosecution had failed to produce
sufficient evidence to link him with the charges of terrorism levelled
against him. He urged the court to discharge and acquit him. He further argued that the proof of evidence before the court did not link Umar to the crimes alleged against him. The defence lawyer contended that the evidence so far led by the prosecution failed to establish any offence against him. Counsel argued that the evidence by all the six prosecution witnesses amounted to hearsay and urged the court to disregard them.
He contended that while the state
accused Umar of “facilitating the commission of terrorist act by
planting and encouraging some boys (now at large) at Mabira Sokoto, in
Sokoto State, with the intention to bomb the police headquarters and
some other government agencies in the state”, the government failed to
bring any of the boys he allegedly planted and encouraged to testify
against him. He said rather than bring the boys whom
the operatives of the State Security Service claimed gave them
information about how he encouraged them to bomb the police headquarters
and other government agencies in Sokoto, the Federal Government brought
operatives of the SSS to give hear-say evidence which has no probative
value.
Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to lead evidence to establish how he facilitated the commission of terrorist offence. He also argued that although he was
accused of withholding information about the plan to bomb the church
from law enforcement officers, the prosecution failed to establish at
what point he got hold of such information and at what point it became
an offence for him not to have disclosed it. He contended that all the witnesses that
testified in the case wasted the time of the court as the evidence led
were not credible to sustain the charge preferred against him. He prayed the court to dismiss the two count charge preferred against Umar.
Prosecution lawyer, Mrs Chioma Onuegbu,
in her counter submission, argued that the state had sufficiently
established a prima facie against Umar. Onuegbu asked the court to discountenance the defence counsel’s submissions.“At this stage, the credibility of the
witnesses does not arise, the weight to be attached to the witnesses
does not arise also,” Mrs Onuegbu argued.
No comments:
Post a Comment