The Supreme Court affirmed Abu Umar’s conviction and death sentence for stabbing a man to death during a fight.

In the certified true copy of the Supreme Court’s judgement made available on Monday in Abuja, Justice Jummai-Hannatu Sankey held that the appeal filed by Mr Umar lacked merit.

The panel affirmed the July 22, 2020 decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna State, which upheld the death sentence handed down to Mr Umar by the High Court of Justice, Kaduna State, on December 14, 2017, about nine years after conviction.

The apex court agreed with the arguments of counsel to the Kaduna State government, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq., of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP.

In the respondent’s brief, Mr Ekpenyong, who was granted a fiat to appear for the prosecution by the state’s attorney general, argued that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence led at the trial court.

Mr Umar, the appellant, had appealed against the unanimous verdict of the Appeal Court in Kaduna, which affirmed the judgement of the Kaduna State High Court in charge number KDH/KAD/29C/2016.

The state government charged Mr Umar with culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State.

Mr Umar was alleged to have stabbed Abdulkadir Abubakar on the right side of his chest with a knife during a fight on June 25, 2015, at Tafa Town in Niger State.

Mr Abubakar was said to have died shortly after being taken to the Umaru Musa Yar’adua Hospital in Sabon Wuse, Niger State.

The appellant was apprehended at the crime scene and taken to the police station at Tafa, Niger State.

After the investigation at the police station at Tafa Town, the matter was later transferred to the Anti-Homicide Section, Kaduna State CID of the Nigerian Police Force, for further investigation.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, Mr Umar was charged at Kaduna State High Court with one count on February 29, 2016, of the offence of culpable homicide and was arraigned before Justice G.I. Kurada.

To prove the charge, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered three exhibits, including the knife Mr Umar allegedly used to stab Mr Abubakar, before closing its case.

On his part, Mr Umar, in line with his constitutionally guaranteed rights, decided to rest his case on that of the prosecution.

Thus, the defendant neither testified for himself nor did he adduce evidence through witnesses or other hard forms of evidence.

After evaluating the evidence presented before the court, Mr Kurada found Mr Umar guilty as charged and proceeded to convict and sentence him accordingly.

The appellant approached the Appeal Court with his notice of appeal filed on January 23, 2018.

In its judgement on July 22, 2020, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement of the trial court.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant, through his lawyer, Umar Galadima Esq., filed a notice of appeal on August 19, 2020.

In his brief of argument marked SC/CR/499/2022, Mr Galadima raised a sole issue for determination.

The lawyer asked whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong when they affirmed the decision of the trial court on the ground that the respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering the lead judgement, which was unanimously concurred with by other justices, Ms Sankey sustained Mr Ekpenyong’s arguments.

She held that the prosecution proved the three ingredients of the offence he was charged for through the eyewitness accounts of the second prosecution witness (PW2), a police officer; the third prosecution witness, the father of Mr Abubakar; and Exhibit 1, the extra-judicial confessional statement of Mr Umar.

The judge opined that “the appellant has raised a dust storm over the absence of a medical report to establish the death of the deceased.”

According to her, however, the law is settled that where death was instant, or within a short time after, mostly within 24 hours after the incident leading to the death, the need for a medical report becomes obvious.

Ms Sankey said, “In the circumstances of this case, medical evidence ceases to take a paramount place, as the deceased died a mere one hour and thirty minutes from his admission to the hospital.”

The judge held that the appellant sealed his fate and shot himself in the foot when he rested his case on that of the respondent.

“From the entire analysis of the case of the respondent at the trial court, it was clear that the prosecution had discharged the burden placed on it by law to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

“Unfortunately, the appellant, who was all through the proceedings represented by counsel, was ill-advised to rest his case on the very evidence which conclusively established his guilt.

“It is for these reasons that I resolve the sole issue for determination against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Consequently, I find this appeal sorely lacking in merit. It fails and is dismissed,” she said. 

(NAN)