Alleged armed robbery: Defendant denies making statement to Police
Statement
By Edith Nwapi
Abuja, April 18, 2018 (NAN ) A defendant, Omenini Bayallah, docked for alleged armed robbery, on Wednesday told an FCT High Court, Maitama, that he was not the maker of the statement that Police claimed that he made.
He was dragged to court by the Police, alongside one Paul Sunday, 20, and Dahiru Yusuf, 40, on a three-count charge, bordering on armed robbery, conspiracy and receiving stolen property.
Mr Ogede Mohammed, counsel to Bayallah and Sunday, had objected to Mr Stanley Nwodo, the prosecuting counsel, tendering the alleged statement made by the first and second defendants.
Justice Peter Affen, ordered for trial – within -trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statements.
At the resumed sitting on Wednesday, Bayallah, led in evidence by Mohammed, told the court that ” I am not the maker of the statement.”
“The signature is mine, but there was nothing written on the statement sheets at the time I was asked to sign.
” I was taken to a room and was asked my name, occupation and address, and I was threatened and forced to write, ” he said.
When he was questioned by Nwodo, the prosecuting counsel, whether a reasonable person can sign a statement he did not make, the defendant insisted that he never made the statement.
The second defendant, Sunday, also told the court that he was not the maker of the statement though the signature was his.
After the testimony of the two defendants, the defence counsel informed the court that he has closed his case in the trial-within-trial .
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until May 14 for adoption of written addresses.
Nwodo had earlier informed the court that on July 14, 2017, at about 2a.m., Bayallah and Sunday, at Maitama, Abuja, robbed one Mrs Ogechukwu Irono.
According to the prosecutor, they robbed Irono of her Samsung galaxy Note 3; 25, 000 U.S. dollars, jewelries valued at N32 million, and other personal items.
Nwodo alleged that Dahiru Yusuf, on the same date received the stolen jewelries.
The offences contravened the provisions of Section 6 of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act.
(NAN)
NEO/AOM/OU
=======
Edited by Abdullahi Mohammed/Obike Ukoh
================================