Bamise: Court Admits Statements Of Accused BRT Bus Driver, Rejects Application For Trial-Within-Trial
Justice Sherifat Sonaike of a Lagos High Court sitting in Tafawa Balewa (TBS) has been told how police investigated the case of suspected murder of Oluwabamise Ayanwole by a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) driver, Andrew Ominikoron.
At the resumed trial of Ominnikoron today, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Goddy Ihende told the court that the case was initially reported as a kidnapping case.
Under cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, Mr Abayomi Omotubora, Ihende, who is the seventh prosecution witness told the court that police later discovered that it was not a case of kidnapping, but that of death.
Ominnikoron is facing a five-count charge bordering on rape, conspiracy, felony, sexual assault, and murder brought against him by the Lagos State government.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant conspired with others (now at large) to rape and murdered a 22-year-old fashion designer, Oluwabamise Ayanwole who boarded his BRT bus at about 7 pm, between Lekki-Ajah Expressway and Carter Bridge, on 26 February 2022.
The prosecution also alleged that the defendant and others (now at large) on 26 February 2022, unlawfully killed one Ayanwole by throwing her out of a moving bus between Lekki- Ajah Expressway and Cater Bridge.
The 47-year-old defendant was also said to have on 25 November 2021, at about 8 pm, allegedly raped another lady, 29-year-old Maryjane Odezulu without her consent at Lekki-Ajah Conservation Centre, Lekki-Ajah Expressway Lagos.
His offences are contrary to and punishable under sections 411, 223, 260 and 165 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to all the count charges preferred against him.
However, DSP Ihende told the court that following the discovery, he and his boss, Assistant Superintendent of Police Razak Oseni, went to the Directorate of State Security (DSS) office and took over the case.
When he was asked how he got to know that the case was with the DSS, the witness responded that he did not know how the Commissioner of Police (CP) got to know that the defendant was with the DSS.
He further told the court that he took over the case from Ebute-Ero Police Division, noting that it was a passerby that reported the case at Ebute-Ero.
“I can’t remember the name of the Investigative Police Officer (IPO), but it was an ASP. I am not the direct IPO of this case. I am the team leader. It is not my responsibility to obtain statements from the complainant.”
He further explained, “after the police officers at Ebute-Ero discovered the body, they took the corpse to the mortuary and we started the investigation afresh. As of the time the case was reported at Ebute-Ero, the defendant was not in the picture so the case I investigated was murder.”
It would be recalled that at the last adjourned date, the case was adjourned for trial-within-trial.
However, earlier in the proceeding, the trial judge, Justice Sonaike asked counsel in the suit to address the court, about the reason for trial-within-trial.
The prosecution counsel, Mr M. A. Olateju and Omotubora, therefore, addressed the court on the issue.
Omotubora said the defence application was premised on Section 29 (2) b of the Evidence Act. According to him, “We are saying that the statement that was taken from the defendant was taken by means of torture, oppression and undue influence.”
He submitted that what amounts to confession is determined by the case and cited Section 28 of the Evidence Act, he however urged the judge to tackle it carefully.
In his submission, Olateju said that it was unfortunate that the interpretation given to Section 29 (2) b of the Evidence Act, is not the intendant of that section. He argued that “the statement of the defendant has no confession In nature. There is nowhere the defendant admitted any of the charges before the court, more so the defendant’s counsel will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
“The defendant will be afforded the chance to state his claim. I urge the court to allow the defendant to be cross-examined.”
After listening to their submissions and arguments, Justice Sonaike in a bench ruling declined the trial-within-trial.
The judge held that “I have read the statements of the defendant made on 7th, 8th, and 9th March 2022 and that of 5th May 2022.
“I have looked at the provisions of Section 29 of the Evidence Act and Section 28 which defines the Evidence Act. I have read the statement of the defendant severally and it is not confessional, and the section cited does not support the offence in the charge.
“The offence is rape, conspiracy to murder, murder and sexual assault, the defendant had denied all through the statement. The trial-within-trial is hereby declined.”
Prior to the ruling, Justice Sonaike frowned at the conduct of the defendant’s counsel. The judge warned defence counsel to stop casting the court’s integrity in the mud.
The judge said, “Because you are representing a defendant doesn’t mean you should run the integrity of the court in the mud”.
The court, therefore, admitted all the statements of the defendant in evidence and adjourned further trial to 5th December 2022.
