Court Denies Army Officer Arraigned Along With Evans For Kidnapping Bail
Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja on Friday declined to grant an army official, Victor Aduba, who was docked alongside alleged kidnap Kingpin Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike alias Evans bail.
Justice Oshodi in a ruling on the bail application filed by the army official upheld the argument of the prosecution that he was a flight risk and that he had no relation in Lagos.
The court also stated that Aduba did not place sufficient material before it to make the court exercise its discretion in his favour.
The judge held, “the bail application is hereby refused and is dismissed.”
The Lagos State government had Arraigned Aduba, Evans and four others before the judge on August 30, 2017 on two charges of conspiracy and kidnapping.
Other defendant in the cases are :Uche Amadi, Ogechi Uchechukwu, Okuchukwu Nwachukwu and Chilaka Ifeanyi.
Further hearing in case was however stalled on Friday as Evans’ counsel, Olukoya Ogungbeje, was not in court.
The development forced the court to adjourn the trial to March 16.
The judge who expressed sadness over the absence of Ogungbejes noted that he hoped that the letter written by the lawyer to seek an adjournment was not a ploy to frustrate the case.
Earlier during the proceedings, Justice Oshodi, in a short ruling, foreclosed the opportunity of the 4th defendant, Nwachukwu, to cross-examine the first prosecution witness, Anselem Dunu.
The witness is the elder brother of the Chief Executive Officer of Maydon Pharmaceutical Limited, Donatus Dunu, who was allegedly kidnapped by the gang sometime in February this 2017.
The judge’s decision to foreclose Nwachukwu’s chance of cross-examining Dunu was based on Nwachukwu’s unwillingness to cross-examine the witness by himself as he was not represented by any lawyer on Friday.
The lead prosecuting counsel, Ms. Titilayo Shitta-Bey, had urged the court not to allow Nwachukwu’s failure to get a lawyer to stop Friday’s proceedings.
She said, “The matter was adjourned for continuation of trial, particularly cross-examination of PW1 by the 4th defendant.
“That the fourth defendant is not represented by counsel should not prevent the cross-examination of the witness from going on.
“He has been given ample opportunity by this court to get counsel of his choice.
“Under Section 36(6)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), he’s entitled to examine the witness either by his counsel or himself.”
She added that on account of the 4th defendant’s delay to get a lawyer, the case had already suffered many adjournments.
Counsel for the 3rd and 5th defendants, A.A. Uzochukwu and Joseph Otogbolu, respectively aligned themselves with Shitta-Bey, but counsel for the 6th defendant, Emmanuel Ochei, urged the court to give Nwachukwu further grace to get a lawyer.
The judge, while agreeing with Shitta-Bey and others, asked the court registrar to ask Nwachukwu if he was ready to cross-examine the witness or foreclose his opportunity.
Responding, Nwachukwu said, “I’m not ready, My Lord.”
He added that his family had arranged a lawyer for him but he was surprised that the lawyer was not in court.
Responding, the judge held, “The court does not buy your excuse. It’s been the same excuse that you have been giving the court.”
Justice Oshodi directed the registrar to ask Nwachukwu once again if he was ready to cross-examine the witness by himself, to which he again replied, “I cannot cross-examine the witness.”
Consequently, the judge held, “Since the 4th defendant has refused to take up the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, he has forfeited the opportunity.”
