Court sentences man to one-year imprisonment for cybercrime

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, sentenced a man, Adun Adewale, to a one-year imprisonment with a N2 million option of fine for cybercrime.

Justice Emeka Nwite ordered that the sentence should begin from the date the convict was arrested.

“In view of the plea of mercy by counsel and taking cognisance that the defendant is a first offender, I am minded to temper justice with mercy,” he said. Justice Nwite subsequently fixed March 18 for the commencement of trial on count two.

Though Adewale had, on December 20, 2024, pleaded guilty to count one when he was arraigned; the defendant, in count two, said he “pleaded guilty with reason” when it was read to him by the registrar. When Justice Emeka Nwite asked him what was the reason, Adewale explained from the dock that he saw the post somewhere and he forwarded it to his page.

His lawyer, Olanrewaju Olaleye, therefore, prayed the court for a stand down in order to confer with his client.

Although Victor Okoye, who appeared for the police, opposed the application, the judge stood down the matter in the interest of justice. After the court reconvened, Adewale’s lawyer told the court that he had discussion with his client and Adewale told him that he (defendant) did not understand the charge read to him. Based on this premise, the lawyer prayed the court for the charge to be read again for his client to take his plea.

But Okoye vehemently opposed the application and the judge adjourned for the parties to address the court through a written address on the position of the law in such instance.

Justice Nwite had, on January 3, fixed Friday for a ruling on Adewale’s application after the defence and prosecution lawyers presented their arguments for and against the matter.

Delivering the ruling on Friday, Justice Nwite agreed with the argument of counsel to the prosecution. The judge held that a party is not allowed to approbate and reprobate in a matter, having pleaded guilty while being represented by a counsel. He said that the Supreme Court had laid down the requirements in the arraignment of an accused and the question was whether the laid down rule was followed.