Amalgamation Day in Lagos, 1914

Amalgamation Day in Lagos, 1914

17 April, 2011

Where a sachet of water is a deadly weapon

Usually, I prefer to post a link to stories carried by Nigerian newspaper websites, so if you wished to read the story, you'd give the web traffic to the professionals who invested resources, time and effort in reporting the story.

Today, for the first (and I hope only) time, I will post the full text of a news report. On the off-chance that NEXT edits the report in the future, I want you to see the story exactly as I saw it few days ago. This is the link to the story on NEXT's website.

Boy, 13, jailed for pelting Obasanjo's convoy with 'pure water'

By Nicholas Ibekwe
April 14, 2011 04:58PM

A 13-year-old boy, Precious Efurueze, who is accused of allegedly attempting to kill former president Olusegun Obasanjo and the governor of Imo State, Ikedi Ohakim, in Owerri on 31, March, by stoning their campaign convoy with sachets of pure water; was on Wednesday denied bail by a chief magistrate court in Owerri.

Master Efurueze is among 18 people charged with attempted murder for participation in the attack on Messrs. Obasanjo and Ohakim. Notable among the accused is Prince Madumere, the chief of staff to the gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), Rochas Okorocha.

At the resumed hearing of the suit yesterday the presiding magistrate, V.C Isiguzo, while delivering ruling on the application for bail for the accused, explained that her court has no jurisdiction on two of the charges because they are punishable by life imprisonment. Mrs. Isiguzo, however, turned down the accused's request to be granted bail until the conclusion of the substantive suit.

The chief magistrate explained that her reason for denying the accused bail is that they had been charged with felony which carries a punishment of life imprisonment if found guilty. She said the offence is a serious one and, therefore, should not be treated lightly.

Speaking to newsmen at the end of the court session, Greg Okemiri, the counsel representing the 12th to the 16th accused persons, while expressing his displeasure with the ruling of the magistrate, hinted that the reason the application was denied may be political. He was also angered by the continued detention of Master Efurueze who, he explained, under the law of the country, by virtue of being a minor, is considered incapable of committing a crime.

"The law describes him as not capable of committing crime yet," he said. "All these things are in our law. Sometimes I feel very sad that we do not want to do things right. You see someone who the law describes as not capable of committing a crime yet, and you remand him in an adult prison." Mr. Okemiri, however, stated that he has taken steps to see that the boy is released soon. The case was adjourned to May 30, for further hearing.

Can you believe it? A 13-year-old kid, charged with "attempted murder" for throwing sachets of pure water? Not "disorderly conduct" or something like that, but "attempted murder"?

And the kid is denied bail because ....? Is he a criminal mastermind? Perhaps he will graduate to throwing handfuls of dry leaves if we don't keep him under lock and key with hardened, adult criminals for room-mates?

Why did his lawyers ask for bail anyway? Why didn't they ask the judge to dismiss the case? I strongly doubt the police can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy threw sachets of water in the first place (our treatment of evidence and crime scenes leaves a lot to be desired). But even if they can, it is simply impossible to legally sustain a murder case against a 13-year-old sachet-of-water-thrower.

The judge's rationale for denying bail is the severity of the crime, a felony punishable by life imprisonment. Before she got to the question of whether bail can be awarded, shouldn't she have first made a finding as to whether a prima facie felony case exists in the first place? Shouldn't she have quashed the charges the moment she realized the ridiculous nature of the case? At the very least she could have instructed the prosecutors to revise their charges against the boy to something that makes sense (and is applicable to what he actually did), at which point she would be free to grant him bail based on the new charges?

There is simply no prima facie evidentiary rationale for the boy's detention on a murder charge. Not only should the judge have issued an order setting him free, she should also have strongly cautioned the police against wasting the court's time with such an unprofessional "case".

You know what probably happened?

The Imo State Governor is driving through the streets with his guest ex-President Obasanjo, and some people embarrass him by throwing sachets of "pure" water at their cars. The governor orders the police to "arrest those hooligans".

The police then round up everyone standing in the vicinity from which sachets were thrown. They have no pictures, no video, no eye-witness accounts, nothing linking the people standing around there other than the fact that they were standing there when water was thrown. The police tell them that even if they were not among, they either (a) saw the people who did it; or (b) supported the people who did it. Either way, "you are coming with us to the station". Someone, the governor or over-zealous policemen seeking the governor's favour, come up with the bright idea of charging the sachet-of-water-throwers with attempted murder.

Sensing an opportunity, the governor orders the police to arrest the lieutenants and functionaries of his principal political opponent, Rochas Okorocha, on charges of "inciting" the throwers of water sachets, thus causing a "security breach". The governor probably does not know that a 13-year-old boys was among the detainees. When he asks the Police Commissioner whether his orders have been carried out, the Commissioner likely tell him "yes" and maybe gives him the number of people arrested and the names of the VIPs arrested for incitement ... but the "hooligans" who actually threw sachets of water are not important enough to be named, and the Commissioner probably sees absolutely nothing about arresting a 13-year-old for attempted-murder-by-water-sachet that should warrant specially reporting it to the governor. Heck, the Commissioner's subordinates probably didn't tell him; they too see nothing especially out of the ordinary with charging a child with attempted-murder-by-means-of-water-sachet.

The case then comes to a judge who knows the case is stupid, and knows it is wrong to lock up a 13-year-old with hardened, adult criminals in an abominable Nigerian jail, but who also knows that if she releases even one of the governor's enemies without the governor's explicit approval, she will feel the governor's wrath. Even if the governor would think it stupid to have arrested the boy if someone had told him, that does not mean he would forgive a judge for acting as if she could overrule an order that came from him.

If the boy's lawyers were serious about getting him out, they would "leak" his story to Al Jazeera or CNN or Sky News. Governments in Nigeria are far more concerned about their image in the global media than they are about their image among Nigerian citizens.

If this story went worldwide, the governor (or frankly the president) would not only order the boy's release, but would then very loudly order the Police Commissioner to investigate how such a thing could have happened. The Commissioner will promise thunder-and-lightning for anyone found to have breached regulations.

Then time will pass ... everyone will forget ... life will go on same as usual ... but at least the boy would be free.

No comments:

Post a Comment