NAN-H-106
Trial
By Veronica Dariya
Abuja, Jan.25, 2017 (NAN) An FCT High Court, Kubwa on Wednesday in Abuja ordered a trial within trial in a case of alleged armed robbery, following doubt in a tendered evidence against Danlami Elisha.
Elisha, 35, was arraigned by the Inspector-General of Police on an amended five- count- charge bordering on criminal conspiracy, armed robbery and attempt to commit murder.
He pleaded not guilty.
In her ruling, Justice Kezziah Ogbonnaya said that the statement of the defendant sought to be tendered as evidence by the prosecuting counsel, Mr Malik David was relevant to the matter.
However, she said that the defendant’s Counsel, F.A Kamaga should have shown the defendant the original copy of his written statement before the court for affirmation, rather than insisting it was fake.
“That the defendant showed you a copy of his original statement in prison is uncorroborated; it cannot be confirmed by anyone.
“Since the statement is relevant in this matter, I would adjourn and we would proceed on that date with a trial within trial.
“A day would be dedicated to each party to present their case; one day for the prosecuting counsel, the next day for defence and all witnesses must be present on that day.
“I do not give room for delay in criminal cases, as such, I would avail you the time to gather all your witnesses and file your processes before the next adjourned date. ’’
Ogbonnaya subsequently adjourned the matter until March 1 and 2 for trial.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the procedure of a trial within trial, the prosecution bears the burden to call an evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made a voluntary confession.
It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove its case.
Earlier, prosecuting counsel David, while cross examining a witness, Insp. Isaac Napdo, sought to tender in evidence a written statement made by the defendant.
He said that the statement was made voluntarily by the defendant.
However, counsel to the Defendant, Kamaga, objected to the application, while arguing that the document sought to be tendered did not match the original copy of the defendant’s statement which was in his possession.
He said that the document was obtained by inflicting “extreme pressure” and threat to the defendant.
Kamaga said that his client confided in him when he visited him in prison, saying that he was forced to admit to committing the crime by the investigating officers on the case.
Kamaga, while relying on Sections 83 and 29 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, urged the court to either reject the evidence or grant an order to commence trial within trial for the interest of justice. (NAN)
DVK/DS/EEE
==========
Edited by Ese E. Ekama