Three soldiers have appealed the death sentence recently passed on them by a Military General Court Martial.
The soldiers who are among the 12 sentenced to death on the 15th of September are: Igomu Emmanuel, Stephen Clement and Andrew Ngbede with service numbers 09NA/62/1648/LCPL, 03NA/53/1816/CPL and 09NA/64/4214/PTE respectively.
The soldiers who are among the 12 sentenced to death on the 15th of September are: Igomu Emmanuel, Stephen Clement and Andrew Ngbede with service numbers 09NA/62/1648/LCPL, 03NA/53/1816/CPL and 09NA/64/4214/PTE respectively.
Prompt News recalls that in May, some protesting soldiers had fired shots at the vehicle of the General Officer Commanding, GOC, 7th Division of the Nigerian Army, Major General Ahmadu Mohammed, in Maiduguri and were subsequently charged for mutiny.
In the appeal filed in Abuja on Thursday by their lawyer, Obla, SAN, containing 11 grounds, the three soldiers contended that the General Court Martial erred in law by convicting them in respect of the offense of conspiracy even when it failed to consider the defense of alibi which they raised but was never investigated by the court martial.
Therefore, the appellants are asking the court to set aside the decision of the Military General Court Martial and to discharge and acquit them.
Therefore, the appellants are asking the court to set aside the decision of the Military General Court Martial and to discharge and acquit them.
Also, they prayed to the court to order the payment of dues and outstanding peculiarly benefits or otherwise accruing to them.
They stated in ground one of the appeal that: “The General Court Martial erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it disregarded the objection of the defence counsel raised before and at the arraignment of the appellant on the defective nature of the charge brought against the appellant”.
They noted that they were charged and convicted at large under section 114 of the Armed Forces Act as the charge did not tie the offence they allegedly committed to any of the sub-sections of section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and that the section did not define the offence of criminal conspiracy as an offence known to law.
Also, they averred that count 1 (one) under which they were charged and convicted is ambiguous, uncertain and defective as they were charged under section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and punished under section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law. Further more, they contend that the count 3 (three) under which they were charged is equally uncertain and defective as they were charged under section 95 of the Armed Forces Actwhich provides a punishment of life imprisonment if convicted but we’re punished and sentenced to death under section 106 of the Armed Forces Act.
The soldiers maintained that the entire charge upon which they were tried and convicted is vague, so disjointed, imprecise and so incoherent that they did not understand the charge neither were their individual names stated on the charge and thus, argued that it is in breach of the provisions of section 36 (6) of the Nigerian Constitution which entitles them to be informed of the details and nature of the offence for which they are charged. They insist that this incoherent and disjointed nature of the charge upon which they were tried and convicted infringed on their fundamental rights.
According to the second ground of the appeal, the soldiers averred that the General Court Martial erred in law and thus came to a perverse decision when it based its decision solely on an equivocal, indirect, negative, uncorroborated and suspicious circumstantial evidence in convicting them for attempt to commit murder and observed that the GOC of 7 Division, Major General Ahmadu Mohammed (N/7915) whom they allegedly attempted to murder by firing shots at his official vehicle which hit the right rear door where he sat, was never led by the prosecution to give evidence on the alleged attempt on his life at their trial and that no ballistic evidence was led at their trial to show that it was their shot that hit the rear of the car in issue.
The appellants contended further that none of the witnesses at their trial clearly and unequivocally identified any of them as the person who shot at the command vehicle of Major General Ahmadu Mohammed and that the General Court Martial merely relied on circumstantial evidence which did not lead conclusively and indisputably that any of their shots was one, if any, that hit the rear right door of the command jeep.
However, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
They stated in ground one of the appeal that: “The General Court Martial erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it disregarded the objection of the defence counsel raised before and at the arraignment of the appellant on the defective nature of the charge brought against the appellant”.
They noted that they were charged and convicted at large under section 114 of the Armed Forces Act as the charge did not tie the offence they allegedly committed to any of the sub-sections of section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and that the section did not define the offence of criminal conspiracy as an offence known to law.
Also, they averred that count 1 (one) under which they were charged and convicted is ambiguous, uncertain and defective as they were charged under section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and punished under section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law. Further more, they contend that the count 3 (three) under which they were charged is equally uncertain and defective as they were charged under section 95 of the Armed Forces Actwhich provides a punishment of life imprisonment if convicted but we’re punished and sentenced to death under section 106 of the Armed Forces Act.
The soldiers maintained that the entire charge upon which they were tried and convicted is vague, so disjointed, imprecise and so incoherent that they did not understand the charge neither were their individual names stated on the charge and thus, argued that it is in breach of the provisions of section 36 (6) of the Nigerian Constitution which entitles them to be informed of the details and nature of the offence for which they are charged. They insist that this incoherent and disjointed nature of the charge upon which they were tried and convicted infringed on their fundamental rights.
According to the second ground of the appeal, the soldiers averred that the General Court Martial erred in law and thus came to a perverse decision when it based its decision solely on an equivocal, indirect, negative, uncorroborated and suspicious circumstantial evidence in convicting them for attempt to commit murder and observed that the GOC of 7 Division, Major General Ahmadu Mohammed (N/7915) whom they allegedly attempted to murder by firing shots at his official vehicle which hit the right rear door where he sat, was never led by the prosecution to give evidence on the alleged attempt on his life at their trial and that no ballistic evidence was led at their trial to show that it was their shot that hit the rear of the car in issue.
The appellants contended further that none of the witnesses at their trial clearly and unequivocally identified any of them as the person who shot at the command vehicle of Major General Ahmadu Mohammed and that the General Court Martial merely relied on circumstantial evidence which did not lead conclusively and indisputably that any of their shots was one, if any, that hit the rear right door of the command jeep.
However, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment