Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal has been asked to set aside the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which convicted an Abuja trader in Utako Market, Nelson Onwuemeodo, over alleged conspiracy and assault.
Nine Igbo traders, who are executive members of Utako Market Shop Owners and Traders Association, were rounded up and charged before the High Court of the FCT, Maitama, by the police, over alleged conspiracy and assault on Chief Dennis Nweke and Nasiru Adamu, at the premises of a High Court.
Specifically, it is the case of the appellant that he was in court on the day of the alleged offence for a case involving Utako Market Association and the Minister of the FCT, from where he proceeded to the National Assembly with other executive members of the association.
They were arrested and arraigned before the trial court on a fallacious three count charge of conspiracy to commit culpable homicide and assault.
At the end of the trial, six out of the nine traders, Nelson Onwuemeodo, Ezeliora Joseph, Emeka Okah, Zainab Nwaorgwu, Igwerna Ale and Ichia Michael Ndu were sentenced and convicted by Justice Peter Kekemeke in his judgment that was delivered on December 9, 2021.
In a 15- grounds of appeal, the appellant, through his counsel, Chukwuma Ma-Chukwu (SAN), faulted the judgment of the trial court as pervasive.
He submitted that unfortunately, the prosecution rather than proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, it ended up with testimonies full of contradictions and unreliable witnesses.
On this point, the appellant’s counsel referred the court to the testimonies of Prosecution Witness (PW1, PW2 and PW3), which he submitted were manifestly contradictory in nature.
He added that the statement the PW1 made to the police was substantially different from what he stated in court.
He further submitted that in the face of the material contradictions, there was nowhere the respondent offered explanations to reconcile the incongruities in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3.
Ume submitted that the trial court was in grave error to have believed, acted and relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences, despite the material contradictions that bedeviled the same.
He insisted that the trial court was wrong to have convicted the appellant on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of the offence.
Ume equally added that the trial court was in complete error to have convicted the defendants based on tainted witnesses, as there had been a growing and standing animosity between PW1 and PW2 against the nine defendants.
He said that the defendants were convicted on the basis of alleged mere presence in the court, the alleged crime scene.
He submitted that having found as a fact that the plea of alibi raised by the appellant was not investigated, the trial court was in grave error and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it went ahead to convict and sentenced the appellant.
