advertisement

Supreme Court okays death sentences on two Islamic militants

By Tobi Soniyi, Abuja

The Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentences passed on two Islamic militants, Abubakar Dan Shalla and Musa Yaro, who in company of others, slaughtered another Muslim for allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammed.

advertisement

In two judgments delivered on Friday, a panel of five justices of the court, comprising Justices Sylvester Onu, Adesola Oguntade, Mariam Mukhtar, Walter Onnoghen, and Tanko Muhammad, unanimously turned down the appeal of two out of the six militants who killed the deceased, Alhaji Abdullar Umaru.

The event leading to the killing took place on July 14, 1999 in Randali Village in Kebbi State.

According to the lead judgment delivered by Justice Oguntade, on that fateful day, word went round that Umaru had insulted Prophet Muhammed, which made some militants, including the two condemned persons, pass judgment on him that he must die.

They went to the village where the deceased was, arrested him and slaughtered him by slicing his throat.

“As adherents to the teachings of the Holy Quran, the appellant and the other accused persons accepted that they had a duty to kill the deceased as contained in the Holy Quoran.”

They were consequently arrested and arraigned before a high court in Birnin-Kebbi on a three-count charge of criminal conspiracy, abatement and culpable homicide. This is contrary to sections 97, 85 and 22 (a) of the Penal Code.

When the trial commenced, the six accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges even though they admitted to killing the deceased.

They were accordingly found guilty and sentenced to death on January 19, 2000 by the trial court.

According to Justice Oguntade, “The manner in which the appellant and the other accused persons behaved during their trial by not calling evidence to deny the allegations against them, and by admitting that they killed the deceased show without doubt that they laboured under a notion that they had a duty under Islamic injunction to kill the deceased.”

They were convicted and sentenced to death. Two of the six convicts appealed to the Court of Appeal and lost.

They again appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the defence of justification and provocation should have availed them.

In rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court noted that the insulting words allegedly uttered by the deceased were not stated to enable the trial judge to know that they were capable of provoking the convicts and justifying their actions.

Justice Oguntade said, “In the circumstances of this case, since the trial court was not told the words alleged to have been uttered by the deceased or the act he did which were contrary to the injunction of Islam as contained in the Holy Quran, and which justified his killing, the trial court could not be criticised for not engaging in a futile speculation.

“In any case, even on the assumption, (although without proof), that the deceased had in some way done any thing or uttered any word which was considered insulting to the Holy Prophet Mohammed, was it open to the appellant and others with him to constitute themselves into a court of law to pronounce the death sentence on another citizen?

“Plainly, this was jungle justice at its most primitive and callous level.

“The facts of this case are rather chilling and leave one wondering why the appellant and others with him committed this most barbaric act.”