The Supreme Court on Friday, April 22, passed death sentence on James Afolabi, who had earlier had the same judgement passed upon him, by the high court in Kogi state and later the Court of Appeal.
The Apex Court made it known that there was no reason it will interfere in the simultaneous result of the case at the lower courts.
Afolabi, an indigene of Kogi state, was investigated and was found to be guilty of murdering a Fulani indigene in the person of one Abubakar Mohammed in Lokoja, the state capital in 2012. Therefore the Kogi state high court passed death sentence on him.
It was through the convict’s confessional statement that the lower court relied upon as gotten from the police. He was said to have shot the deceased on the chest on February 27, 2009, because the latter was wandering about on his yam and cassava plantation.
On Friday, April 22, Justice John Inyang Okoro in an appeal court judgement marked SC/181/2012, ruled on the Court of Appeal judgement of Abuja on March 22, 2012, stating that, through the witness, there was enough evidence, “which gave vent to the confession of the appellant.
“And in any case, this court held in Mohammed v State (2007) 11 NWLR (pt 1045) 303 at 230 paragraph F that where an accused person confesses to a crime, in the absence of an eye witness of the killing, he can be convicted on his confession alone.
“For all I have said, I hold a strong view that the court below was on a strong wicket when it upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant upon reliance on his confessional statements.”
The judge further said:
“In the instant case, the appellant states emphatically, in Exhibit D (confessional statement), adjudged to have been freely and voluntarily made, that he aimed his gun at the chest of the deceased at close range and shot him. It was his further evidence that the deceased fell down and could not move again. At that point, he ran to the village head and reported that he had killed a man.
“In the circumstance, did he intend to kill the man? I had earlier stated in this judgment that a person is taken to intend that natural and probable consequences of his act.
“So, when the appellant aimed his gun at the chest of the deceased and shot it, did he intend to keep him alive? I do not think so. At least he intended to cause him grievous bodily harm.
“And, in view of the force of a gunshot aimed at the heart, the engine room of a man’s life, it can safely be concluded that the appellant intends to kill the deceased on his action, the report he made to the village head notwithstanding.”
Despite the alleged killings of some Fulani in the Southeastern states, the herdsmen have been criticised lately for the violent attacks.
Post a Comment