Suspected kidnapper, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike a.k.a Evans has requested that the Lagos High Court sitting in Igbosere quash the two separate charges filed against him by the Lagos State Government.
Evans and three others; Joseph Emeka, Ugochukwu Nwachukwu and Victor Aduba, were accused on fresh five-count charge bordering on conspiracy to kidnap, kidnapping, and attempted murder.
Initial charges
The alleged kidnap kingpin was arrested on June 10, 2017, and arraigned before judge, Hakeem Oshodi, at an Ikeja High Court for kidnapping, in August 2017.
Before he was charged, he had accused the Police of infringing on his rights by detaining him since his arrest in June without any Court order.
In an ex parte motion, he asked the Court to coerce the Police to either charge him to court immediately or release him from custody unconditionally.
But in an interview with Channels, Evans claimed that the lawsuit, by a Lagos lawyer Olukoya Ogungbeje, against the Police was an attempt by some people to put him in more trouble.
“I have no hand in any case filed against the Police and I did not speak with any lawyer or my father to file a case on my behalf.
“All I will say is that they should temper justice with mercy.”
According to the Government, the suspects had, on February 14th at about 7.45pm at Ilupeju, Lagos, conspired to kidnap one Donatus Dunu and collect €223,000 for his release.
He pleaded guilty to the first and second charges, while Amadi the second defendant, also pleaded guilty to the two counts, Nwachukwu pleaded guilty to conspiracy and not guilty to kidnapping and Uchechukwu, Ifeanyi and Aduba, pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Justice Hakeem Oshodi adjourned till October 19 for trial of those who pleaded not guilty, and to look at the evidence for those who pleaded guilty before their conviction.
Changed plea
At the October 19 arraignment, the defendants unanimously pleaded not guilty of all charges before the Judge.
Before their charges were read, Ike Chika, the prosecuting counsel, informed the Court of their intention to bring an amended charge which would require the defendants to take fresh pleas. He added that the amended charge had already been served on the defence.
The statement elicited arguments between the prosecution and defence counsels, with the latter claiming they were just served minutes before the day’s proceedings began and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to discuss with their clients.
The amended charges retained the accusations of conspiracy and kidnapping but changed the section in the Law on punishments regarding the offences allegedly committed.
Justice Oshodi fixed November 3 for the adjournment of the case against Evans and the five others.
At the commencement of the November 3rd hearing, the State Director of Department of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Titi Shitta-Bay, informed the Court that although the matter was slated for trial, defense lawyers have filed series of applications which she termed confusing and conflicting.
Evans’ counsel, Mr. Ogungbeje Olukoya, had served her with two contradicting applications; an application praying for the court to quash the charges and in the same breath he is seeking bail and accelerated hearing of the case in another application.
“On behalf of the 1st defendant, we were served with an application asking the court to quash information presented before the Court. We have responded by filing a counter affidavit. In another application, they are asking the 1st and 2nd defendants to be admitted on bail and acceleration of the trial.”
In defence, Olukoya said the application asking for an order to quash the charges has been responded to and due for hearing but the application asking for accelerated hearing was not due for hearing.
He also argued that there is no prima facie case against his client. Mr. Ogungbeje said his client’s name was not mentioned in any of the documents compiled in the proof of evidence neither did any of the victims mention his client.
After arguments and counter-arguments by both defense and prosecuting counsels, the presiding judge dismissed the applications seeking to quash charges against Evans and Mr. Aduba.
The matter was again adjourned to November for the continuation of trial.
By the end of February, Evans and his associate have been in and out of Court over three times, with adjournments, closing the end of each trial.
Why the postponements?
Evans is facing two separate charges in two different Courts which is being presided over by two judges, Justice Adedayo Akintoye and Justice Hakeem Oshodi.
Cross-examinations of defendants, establishment of charges among others are reasons his case has tarried this long.
Many opine that justice is being delayed due to his influence as a ‘billionaire kidnapper’, who is trying as much as he can to buy enough time for himself.
In November, the Lagos State Government brought a fresh five-count charge bordering on conspiracy to kidnap, kidnapping and attempted murder against Evans and three others, but the absence of his lawyer and due to one of the three persons charged along with Evans, having no legal representation, it was again adjourned till January 22.
Any hope of judgment anytime soon
There does not seem to be any sign of judgment coming anytime soon as Evans has asked the Court to quash the two separate charges filed against him by the Lagos State Government.
Also, his lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje, informed the Court that he had filed a motion on notice to quash all the charge filed against the first defendant (Evans).
Mr. Ogungbeje said that all the charges and the proof of evidence before the court did not establish any prima facie case against the first defendant.
He stated that the prosecution had earlier filed similar charges and amended charges bordering on kidnapping against the same first defendant pending before the same High Court of Lagos State.
“It will be in the interest of justice if all the two separate charges are quashed and the defendant is accordingly discharged.”
Judge Adedayo Akintoye, after listening to all the arguments, adjourned the case until March 22 for ruling.
Blackstone Formulation, Erring on the side of Innocence
In criminal law there is something called the Blackstone Formulation or Ratio. It basically says “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer“. This means it would be better to make the mistake of allowing 10 guilty persons go free thinking their innocent, than to allow a single innocent person suffer for a crime he did not commit.
The ratio of 10:1 has varied with time but the fundamental message being that it is better to mistakenly acquite than to mistaken convict has been kept.
This in mind, Courts do not try cases based on public opinion or video confessions. There still needs to be formal plea of guilt ot not guilty and adjournments to fit into the court’s busy schedule, and this problem is world wide.
In Evans’ case the Court never adjourned for more than 2 months except in at the end of the year. This seem to be not so far from the practice all over the world.
For example, in California, a defendant charged with a felony must be brought to trial within 60-30 days of being arraigned on an information or indictment unless there is “good cause” for delay—otherwise, the judge must dismiss the charges. (Cal. Penal Code § 1382.). Time is also provided for prosecution to prepare its case. In the US, in a misdemeanor the prosecutor has 90 days to be ready for trial and 180 days to be ready for a felony.
