Unilorin Rape/Murder Case: Counsels unanimously fault confession obtainment

By Jimoh Sulyman

On Monday at the Kwara State High Court, in Ilorin, during the continuation of hearing of the eight alleged killers of the late unilorin student, Miss Olajide Blessing, the counsels of the eight defendants have unanimously faulted the confessional statements attributed to their clients.

The counsels in what seem to be repetition of argument alleged that there are some discrepancies in the process obtaining the confessions owing to noncompliance with the due process and extant laws pertaining to extraction of confessions.

Barr Shina Ibiyemi, counsel to the 1st defendant, AbdulAzeez Ismail, alleged that his Client’s mother was intentionally prevented from seeing him despite all efforts to see him.

Ibiyemi added that the law stated that a suspect has the right to remain silent, until he is avail to consult an attorney or person of his choice, but his client was denied those rights in the course of interrogating him.

In the same vein Barrister Falokun Olabanji, representing the 2nd defendant, claimed that there were irregularities preceding and succeeded the taking of the defendant’s statement at the DSS office.

He also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the extrajudicial confessional statement of the 2nd defendant sought to be tendered was obtained voluntarily without torture and oppression.

Barr Lukman Bello representing both the 6th and 8th defendants, also raised objection on the ground of violation of the section 29 subsection 2 of the evidence act of 2011  also that the prosecution were unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement were obtained voluntarily.

Adding that all four prosecution witnesses failed to stand the test of accuracy, veracity and credibility under section 223 of evidence act, stating that all the testimonies by pw1 and pw2, pw3 and Pw4 are full of lies.

He also said that the endorsement by the legal Aid personnel, Barrister A. A Jimoh, was done based on hearsay of what she was told by the DSS and not what the defendants told her.

Bello alleged that despite that his client, 6th defendant(Abdullateef AbdulRahman) being denied the right to remain silent until he make consultation with a legal practitioner for advice, he was tortured, handcuffed and punched and tased by the DSS officers.

Barrister Imam Ayegbami, Counsel to the 7th defendant, Daud Bashir, just like all other counsels, questions the veracity and authenticity of the statements tendered, he said the circumstance by which confession statement was obtained from his client is in contrary to section 29 subsection 2 paragraph A of the evidence act.