A lawyer, Udeme Otike-Odibi,
who was accused of killing her husband, Symphorosa Otike-Odibi, on May 3, 2018,
has urged the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere to reject her confessional
statements made to the police.
She was also alleged to
have mutilated his corpse after killing him.
The offences were said to
contravene sections 165 (b) and 223 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.
At the last adjourned date
on January 23, 2019, the police witness, Olusegun Bamidele, had told the court
that Udeme confessed to killing her husband.
The witness, who is an
Assistant Superintendent of Police, had told the court that he was the head of
the team that investigated the killing and that he personally recorded the
defendant’s initial statement.
He added that the second
time he met Udeme, she was in protective custody at a police hospital in Ikeja
after she had been moved from the Safeway Hospital in Lekki, noting that it was
during an interactive session at the hospital that the suspect wrote a detailed
confessional statement.
However, when the Lagos
State Director of Public Prosecutions, Titilayo Shitta-Bey, wanted to tender
the statements, Udeme’s counsel, Oluseye Banjoko, objected and the presiding
judge, Justice Adedayo Akintoye, adjourned for trial within trial to consider
the admissibility of the statements.
At Monday’s proceedings,
Udeme, through her lawyer, Banjoko, made an application that the court should
stop the conduct of the trial within trial to determine the admissibility of
the two statements made by the defendant during police investigation.
Banjoko noted that the
constitution made provisions that the statement of any person arrested must be
made in the presence of a legal practitioner or must be videoed.
He added that Section 93 of
the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2015, also made it
mandatory that to achieve transparency in statements taken, the above law must
be complied with.
He said, “Why the law was
made was so that we do not waste the time of the court in going into trial
within trial to determine the admissibility of the said statement.
“Our application is for an
order rejecting the alleged confessional statements since the provisions of the
law were not followed.”
Responding, the prosecutor,
Shitta-Bey, said the provision of the constitution stated that the substantive
law to be adhered to in determining the admissibility of any piece of evidence
was the Evidence Act, 2011.
Shitta-Bey stated that the
ACJL, which was referred to by the defence counsel, was a “procedural law,
which cannot supersede the Evidence Act.”
She further urged the court
to proceed with the trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the
defendant’s statements. Justice Akintoye adjourned the case till April 21 for
further hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment