In terms of judicial precedent, one notable case that echoes the ODU’s position is State v. Bamaiyi (2001), where the court corroborated the significance of a comprehensive investigation when new investigation implicates individuals connected to a crime.

By BABALOLA, Abdulbaki Muyiwa

Keenly, I have watched the recent pronouncements – against and for, surrounding the landmark judgment, sentencing to death by hanging the perpetuators of the 5th April, 2018 horrible attack on civilians and men of the Nigerian Police Force, who stood in defense of our community last Thursday, 26th September, 2024. This woeful incident left an unforgettable scar on the city, and while justice appeared to be served, concerns had risen most especially by the Offa Descendants Union (ODU) for a further comprehensive investigation.

While this served odd to the perspective of numerous others, The Union’s request is naturally predicated and aligns with the principles of fairness, equity, and justice as outlined in the Nigerian legal frame. Their call as against erroneous interpretation, centers around an objective probe of other individualities allegedly (as mentioned by the perpetuators) as connected to the crime, though not as direct actors.

The ODU’s position Is naturally justified under Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees every citizen the right to fair hearing. This right extends not only to the individuals directly indicted of crimes, but also demands thorough and unprejudiced examinations into any allegations, especially when new substantiation or admissions arise during criminal proceedings. The Constitution enshrines the idea that justice must be comprehensive, noting that all parties involved in a crime, whether directly or laterally, are investigated thoroughly to uphold the sanity of the legal process.

Thus, the ODU’s request for a detailed investigation of the mentioned associates is in tandem within the frame of legal due process and responsibility. Likewise, under the ‘Criminal Code Act of 2004’, the guilt of individualities who prop , abet, or give logistical support in the commission of a crime is easily established. Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code stipulate that any existent who assists in the planning or prosecution of a crime, indeed if not physically present at the scene, can be held criminally responsible.

The law makes no distinction between direct perpetrators and those who offer circular support if similar support is proven to have eased the crime. *In this case, the ODU’s demand that the individualities mentioned by the stealers, who may have backed them logistically, be delved is forcefully predicated in Nigerian felonious law. The law’s station on abetting and abetting ensures that no aspect of the crime remains unaddressed, thereby maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

This position is further supported by the Nigeria Police Act of 2020, which authorized the police force to help and probe crimes impartially and exhaustively. Section 4 of the Act outlines the duty of the Nigerian Police to detect crime, apprehend offenders, and help in the prevention of further crime. As such, any confession or admissions arising from the investigation, induced, of a crime must be pursued, investigated, and completely prosecuted where necessary.

The ODU’s call for an extended investigation, particularly of individuals allegedly linked in causation to the act, falls exactly within the premise of investigative duties expected of the Police. This ensures that all aspects of the crime are completely explored and that no party, however indirect, escapes scrutiny.

In terms of judicial precedent, one notable case that echoes the ODU’s position is State v. Bamaiyi (2001), where the court corroborated the significance of a comprehensive investigation when new investigation implicates individuals connected to a crime. The judgment emphasized that the integrity of the criminal justice system hinges on ensuring that no party, whenever mentioned, escapes legal scrutiny, irrespective of their position of involvement. This supports the ODU’s asseveration that individuals mentioned in the perpetrators’ admissions can be investigated, charged or acquainted, as it underscores the duty of the bar and law enforcement agencies to pursue every lead in the pursuit of justice.

While certain groups have expressed concerns that the ODU’s call for further disquisition may be politically motivated, it’s essential to objectively assess the Union’s intent interms of community development and the rule of law. The ODU has constantly deposited itself as a non-partisan body whose primary concern is defending the integrity of the Offa community. Their call for farther disquisition should be seen through the lens of restorative justice, which emphasizes not only holding perpetrators responsible but also restoring a sense of safety and fairness to the community. By ensuring that all those mentioned in connection to the crime are completely investigated and charged if necessary, the ODU is championing for a justice system that serves both the victims of the attack, its perpetrators and the broader community.

Also, the admissions of the robbers, if corroborated by empirical substantiation, truly requires further scrutiny. This disquisition is not aimed at darkening the character of those mentioned but rather at ensuring that all angles of the crime are completely explored. Such a comprehensive approach to justice will support public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in an era where public trust in legal institutions is fragile. A justice system that’s seen to be thorough, indifferent, and transparent strengthens its legality and potency in the eyes of the people.

The Integrity of the judicial process is pivotal in maintaining the rule of law, and the ODU’s position aligns with this principle. Ensuring that those mentioned in connection to the crime are investigated does not, in any way, impugn the integrity of the individuals concerned. Rather, it ensures that the justice system remains responsible and transparent, upholding the principle of equity, which demands that justice be served impartially, without fear or favor.

 While it’s important to admit in acknowledgement the concerns of groups prompting the ODU and her officials to refrain from political involvement, it must be emphasized that the Union’s position on this subject matter is naturally and fairly justified. The premise of the ODU’s position is grounded on the need to ensure that justice is both comprehensive and transparent. This is not a politically driven docket but a reflection of the Union’s commitment to guarding the interests of the Offa community while upholding the rule of law.

In conclusion, the ODU’s call for a detailed investigation of all persons mentioned in connection with the 2018 Offa robbery is a licit and naturally predicated request towards ensuring that every aspect of the crime is completely explored. The ODU is thus in her purview, championing for a criminal justice system that reflects the values of fairness, responsibility, and translucency. This stance is not only in the best interest of the Offa community, but also serves to strengthen the integrity of Nigeria’s legal institutions as a whole. In the pursuit of justice, no lead should be left unexplored, and no existent should be beyond the reach of the law, for the rule of law to prevail in every case.

BABALOLA, Abdulbaki Muyiwa

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+2348162403515