“I am not an armed robber, I am a taxi driver, I left home in the morning of 28/2/2011 for my daily survival, my car broke down and I was arrested by the members of OPC who said armed robbers came to robbed in that vicinity last night, that was how I was arrested and never return to my family again”>>>CONTINUE FULL READING HERE....CONTINUE READING THE ARTICLE FROM THE SOURCE
He was sentenced to death based on his confessional statement and claimed innocence on the allegations of armed robbery. He denied the confessional statement. It was obvious from the record that the police lied in his evidence against him. No other police officer corroborated his evidence. A robbery occurred within 2 hours in the same vicinity against PW 1 and PW 2. No evidence to corroborate PW 1 and PW 2’s evidence regarding the separate robberies on that day. Both PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 & PW 4 provided contradictory evidence. In this case there are 2 civilians and 2 police. The police officer at the local station where the incidence happened and the police officer at Eleweran SCID. Based on the suspect’s confessional statement, he was sentenced to death by the Court.
The defendant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal but the appeal failed. While an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, the appellant sought our intervention at the Centre for Justice Mercy and Reconciliation. While reading through the proceedings here are my findings and analysis of the case.
In my opinion, the appellant did not deserve to be in prison for 24 hours. We obtained both the judgement of the trial court and the Court of appeal for review and analysis.
According to section 135(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, “the burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to Section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action.” This provision has been applied in numerous cases by the Supreme Court, including the case of JUBRIL v. FRN (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1714) @ 315 Paras. D-F, where the Apex Court stated thus:
“By the provisions of section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, to secure a conviction in a criminal charge, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.”
Courts have consistently held that the existence of certain situations can show reasonable doubt in the case of a prosecution. These situations include:
1. When the prosecution could not prove all the essential elements/ingredients of the offense, and
2. Where evidence adduced in the case is consistent with the guilt of the accused person as well as his innocence.
It is important to note that the prosecution’s case theory, as contained in both statements and oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 concerning the Defendant- Adeyemi Faleye, which the prosecution is relying on, are inconsistent and at variance with each other’s testimonies and also at variance with the oral testimony of the DW1 in court during trial.>>>CONTINUE FULL READING HERE
While it is not our duty as an Organization to prove the innocence of an accused person or criticize the judgment of the court, in cases where an appellant persistently claims innocence, we offer our listening ears. Without sentiment, we carry out our investigation by reviewing the judgment and the court processes to ascertain the possibility of telling the truth or lying.
This Organization visited the appellant in Kirikiri Maximum Custodial Centre, where he maintained his innocence on the allegation he was convicted on. We shall focus our evaluation on four cardinal points as follows:
1. The way of arrest of the accused and how he was pinned into this crime
2. The statement made by the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 witnesses in this case
3. The confessional statement of the appellant and who made it?
4. The decision of court in sentencing the accused to death
It is evident that there were two separate robbery incidents on 27/2/2011, occurring at approximately 8 pm and 10 pm. The complainants- PW1 and PW2 in these cases were the owners of the two petrol stations. The PW3 and PW4 were the investigation police officers in Idiroko and Eleweran Abeokuta Police Stations where the complaints were lodged.
THE WAY OF ARREST: The appellant was connected with the robbery incidents through his arrest on 28/2/2011 at around 8:30 am by three members of the OPC at Mede area enrooted from Aferiku to Idiroko when his vehicle broke down. However, there are conflicting accounts of the appellant’s arrest provided by PW1, PW2, PW3 and the appellant himself.
Regarding the timing of the robbery incidents, PW1 stated that the first incident occurred at about 8 pm on 27/2/2011, while PW2 claimed that it happened before 10 pm on the same day at different places. The appellant’s defense counsel, on pages 18 to 20 of the appellant’s brief of argument, presented evidence that PW1 was informed by the police on 28/2/2011 that vigilantes had arrested some robbers, which was corroborated by PW2’s testimony that the accused person was brought to the station by the vigilantes.
The conflicting accounts raise questions about who actually arrested the defendant and where the arrest took place. The appellant repeatedly stated that he was arrested by the three members of the OPC vigilante by the roadside beside his car at around 8:30 am at Mede, while his car had broken down and he was waiting for his mechanic as he was never arrested at the scene of the crime on the day of the incidence.
However, PW1 and PW2’s evidence suggested that the vigilantes were responsible for the appellant’s arrest on 28/2/2011. The evidence of the police officer at Idiroko is also crucial in this case, as police evidence is considered sacred in the temple of justice. The judge’s recording of the police officer’s evidence will be essential in determining the facts of the case and ensuring justice is served. And I quote below:
“The PW3 said he was in the station at about 1310 (meaning about 3.10 am in the dead of night) when a case of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery was reported by the PW1. After that, a team of police investigators led by Inspector Lawal Hassan went on the trail of the armed robbers. He said that upon being sighted, the armed robber opened fire on him and that during the exchange of gunfire, one of the robbers was shot dead, while the appellant was arrested at the scene.”
How would you describe the evidence of this police officer who lied recklessly to the court, claiming that the prosecution witnesses had brought their report at 3.10 a.m. and that he saw the armed robbers at gunpoint and killed one of them at the exchange of gunfire? No other police officer corroborated his claim from the Idiroko police station and the evidence is at variance with where the appellant was arrested or the date of his arrest. Also, while describing the scene where the armed robber was arrested, he said about 100 meters to the scene of crime. This is unbelievable. That armed robbers will go for an operation and still remain in that environment for good 12 hours?
PW4 who was also a police officer from Eleweran where the case was transferred has this to say. PW4’s testimony under oath: Under cross-examination [page 75 of the record], PW4 testified as follows:
The exact date that the incident happened was 28th February 2011”. PW4 also stated thus [page 75 of the record]: “The incident happened in the morning at about 01:00 hours, at another point he said he could not ascertain the date because he lost his diary” The PW4 went ahead and said “I visited the scene of crime. The accused person was arrested beside a church close to the scene of crime where Gbenga aka Lakor a member of the gang was short dead during the robbery operation.
The interesting part of the evidence given was that none of the witnesses- PW1 and PW2 mentioned that someone was shot dead during the operation. It was also cleared that the robbery incidence took place on 27/2/2011 and the witnesses met the appellant in the station on 28/2/2011, and none of them mentioned about someone being shot dead during the operation after the complaint was lodged.
There is no any IOTA of truth in the evidence of both PW3 and PW4. No iota of truth I repeated. The fact being that you stated that a robbery incidence happened on the 27/2/2011 between 8pm and 10 pm and you still find the culprit on the scene of crime, while one was shot dead when the other was captured alive?
From the record of the court also, it is easy to surmise the following versions from the prosecution witnesses:
a) PW1- The robbery happened on 27/2/2011 at about 8pm.
b) PW2- The robbery happened on 27/2/2011 before 10pm.
c) PW3- The robbery was reported by PW1 on 28-02-2011 at about 0310hours.
d) PW4 – The exact date that the incident happened was 28 February 2011 in the morning at about 0100 hours.
The four disparate versions of events above raise a doubt in the case of the prosecution, which ought to have been resolved in the Appellant’s favour as enunciated by the Supreme Court in UGBOJI v. STATE (2017) LPELR-43427(SC), Per Eko, J.S.C., Pp. 54-55, paras. E-A:
“The elementary rule in our adversarial jurisprudence or in the administration of criminal justice is; where there exists any doubt in the case of the prosecution, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused person…” See also IGBIKIS v. STATE (2017) LPELR-41667(SC).
How credible are the evidence of the PW1 who claimed that his petrol station was robbed at 8:00 pm without any of the petrol attendants or people in that vicinity testifying that there was a robbery incident at that time in his Petrol Station? The same question goes for the PW2 who was robbed before 10pm at his Petrol Station; nobody came forward to support the claim.
In our humble opinion and observation from a layman’s point of view, the totality of the evidence before the court has not established the charge against Adeyemi Faleye beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not even sure if there was a robbery incident on that day. The OPC vigilante who arrested the appellant did not even show up during the trial.
We further submit that strong suspicion of the appellant based on hearsay evidence of the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 without more against them from the investigative officers pinning him to the scene of the crime 12 hours after the robbery incident, could never be true but far from justice to prove any crime against the appellant in this case.
The questions that need to be clearly answer are:
• Was the appellant arrested at the scene of the crime? NO!
• Were the police officers the ones that arrested the appellant? NO!
Thus, if the evidence of the police officers is not credible to hold water, how did the judge conclude to convict the appellant because he denied his confessional statement?
THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: How does the confessional statement sound like?
“On Sunday 27th February 2011 at about 1200 midnight I slept at the house of Aragberi called Ifajimi Agbotifayo when Lakur came to wake me up and they instructed me to get on the motorcycle brought by them. They said they are going somewhere that they may likely want to make mistake by missing the road that I should lead them. I led them to the Yusuf filling station… ”
How true is the confessional statement? From the above, it stands to reason that the only time the Appellant could have led others to the robbery was after 12 mid-night of 27tn February, 2011; that is sometime in the wee hours of 28h February, 2011.
However, PW1 during his cross-examination [page 51 of the record] testified under oath that the incident happened around 8:00pm and that tallies with his evidence-in-chief [at page 50 of the record] that the incident occurred on 27/2/2011 at about 8:00pm.
PW2, also, in his evidence-in-chief [page 51 of the record] stated as follows: “On 27/2/2011, we were in our filling station that is Samuraf Filling Station along Omotedo Road at Ajegunle, before 10:00pn the Attendants were attending to the customers when the robbery incidence happened.
But in the so-called confessional statement the appellant said “I led them to the Yusuf filling station at about 1.00am? How true is the confessional statement?
WHO MADE THAT CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT? PW3 and PW4, admitted that they ‘graciously’ wrote the confessional statements for him on the spurious excuse that the appellant authorized them to write for him (page 75 of the Record].
PW4 said that the appellant made the statement to him in English Language [page 63 of the record] and in another breadth told the court that the appellant spoke to him in both English and Yoruba language and he recorded it in English Language [page 75 of the record]. It is curious and suspicious that the purported authority for PW4 to write the appellant’s statement was written by PW4, not the person who gave him the authority.
ON THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY: Who are the people charged along with the appellant at the initial stage?
“At the police station, the police officers asked me to take them to my mechanic, and I led the police to my mechanic. That was how my mechanic was arrested.
I did not know the three other people in this case. We were charged to the Magistrate Court at Ipokia. At the Magistrate Court, the three of them were granted bail, including my mechanic, while one of them was struck out for no case to answer.
We hereby, in conclusion respectfully submit this humble appeal on behalf of Mr. Adeyemi Faleye, with the utmost humility and in the interest of justice and humanity. We urge the Board to re-examine the case from the perspective of inconsistent and unclear evidence, particularly regarding the appellant’s arrest. It is evident that the prosecution’s case against Adeyemi Faleye is based on a fabricated story and unfounded suspicions, aimed at implicating him in a crime he did not commit.
The appellant told us that while his car broke down at Mede, he was arrested by the vigilantes. Which means that Adeyemi Faleye’s arrest was a mere suspicion by the OPC Vigilantes.
It is noteworthy that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion alone is not enough to secure a conviction; rather, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As often stated in judicial quote “Suspicion of the defendant, no matter how strong is not a substitute of proof beyond reasonable doubt. See NWALU v. STATE (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1638) Page 178, Paras C-D. The law is clear as stated in the case of MAJOR HAMZA AL-MUSTAPHA v. THE STATE (2013) LPELR-20995 (CA) where the Court held that:
” No matter the Suspicion and its degree, no matter the grievance or grouse, no matter the height of conjecture, no matter the depth of hatred, even the strongest SUSPICION can never be found convicted in law. The Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. T his is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and ensures that individuals are not wrongfully convicted based on mere suspicion.
Our organization has presented the case of Adeyemi Faleye to the Ogun State Board of Mercy to judiciously exercise its constitutional power and recommend to the Executive Governor of Ogun State, His Excellency, Prince Dapo Abiodun, as recorded on page 107 of the record of the judgment, where the presiding judge recommended the Governor to exercise the power of the prerogative of mercy in favor of Mr. Adeyemi Faleye, for his remorseful demeanor during the trial, to kindly grant Adeyemi Faleye total freedom in the upcoming amnesty exercise according to the constitutional power confided on him.
In cases of wrongful conviction, there can be multiple factors and individuals who may share responsibility. It is important to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the specific circumstances that led to the wrongful conviction.
According to the letter of Adeyemi Faleye to the CJMR “The Bible says “Whoever shall cover his sin shall not prosper” I am begging the team of the Centre for Justice Mercy and Reconciliation, CJMR and the true lover of Justice in Nigeria to come to my rescue from this injustice. Over this case, my wife has abandoned me for another man. From age 3 my mother left my father to another man, I was the only child of my mother in my father’s house. I am from a polygamous family, I have nobody and no money to seek for Justice further. I did not rob anybody. The father of twins said “On the night of 27/282/2011 I slept with my wife in my house, on the morning of 28/2/2011 I left home to go and struggle for survival before I ended up in the prison. I shall be grateful if you can assist me and rescue my life from this injustice. I shall be grateful at your visit to me at Kirikiri Custodial Centre where I can explain full details of my story to you”
Should we keep quiet on his crying for justice?
This is not an attempt to ridicule our judicial system but to point out how our judges are being misled everyday to misapply justice to the wrong person. When justice is lost, there is need to find it and when it is found there is need to restore it to the rightful owner. Thus, my concept of restorative justice is the absent of justice. You can only restore something back to its original position when it is found in the wrong position.
Prov 31:8-9. Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”>>>CONTINUE FULL READING HERE
