The Osun State Government’s recent consideration of the prerogative of mercy for convicted individuals has drawn significant attention and has invariably stirred public opinion based on incomplete or misleading narratives. While this action demonstrates the government’s commitment to exercising compassion and upholding constitutional provisions, it is imperative that such privilege is not misinterpreted or misused to distort the sanctity of judicial decisions. Misleading narratives aimed at undermining the judiciary not only threaten public trust but also obscure the real facts surrounding this case.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>

The Osun State Government deserves commendation for its thoughtful approach to this matter, particularly its willingness to consider clemency in light of the convicts’ circumstances through the prerogative of mercy as exercised by the executive arm of government is a constitutional provision designed to temper justice with compassion and mercy when appropriate. But this authority is not in anyway a critique of judicial decisions. Instead, it reflects a complementary relationship between the arms of government, underscoring the separation of powers.

However, it is equally crucial to avoid abusing this constitutional privilege by turning the law into a tool to fit a distorted narrative, especially one that trivialises the gravity of the original crimes. This recent development does not, and should not, be interpreted as a challenge to the judiciary’s authority. The judiciary’s role is to ensure that justice is served based on evidence and the letter of the law, while the executive’s mercy is a discretionary act that operates within a separate but complementary sphere.

It is therefore crucial to clarify the facts and reaffirm the role of the judiciary as the backbone of any functional democracy tasked with interpreting and enforcing the law impartially based on evidence, legal statutes, and due process. The misleading portrayal of the judiciary, and in particular the judge who presided over the case, is not only unfair but risks undermining public trust in this vital arm of government.

The current case is a reflection of this democratic balance. The judiciary fulfilled its mandate by delivering a verdict based on the facts and the law. Any subsequent exercise of clemency by the executive does not negate the judiciary’s integrity but highlights the collaborative nature of governance under the separation of powers.

Contrary to sensationalised reports, the conviction of Olowookere Segun and Morakinyo Sunday was not for the petty theft of a fowl, but for armed robbery and related crimes. The prosecution, led by the state Solicitor-General, Mrs. Abiola Adewemimo, presented irrefutable evidence, including eyewitness accounts and confessions from the accused.

The case stemmed from an incident in the year 2010, when the convicts forcefully broke into the home of Mr. Balogun Tope, a police officer, armed with a cutlass and a dane gun. They carted away valuables, including livestock, and were apprehended following their involvement in similar robberies. The evidence showed a clear pattern of criminal behaviour, including their admission to robbing another individual, Alhaja Umani Oyewo, from whom they stole broilers, eggs, and kegs of vegetable oil.

Justice Jide Falola of the Osun State High Court, sitting in Okuku, delivered a judgment grounded in the law. The convicts were found guilty of conspiracy, robbery, and stealing, with sentences proportionate to the gravity of their crimes, death by hanging for conspiracy, in accordance with Section 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearm (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Life imprisonment for robbery. Three years’ imprisonment for stealing.

The judge also showed humanity in his judgment, recommending that the governor may consider commuting the death sentence to a ten-year prison term, given the convicts’ ages and circumstances. This reflects a balanced application of the law, tempered with empathy, a situation we now witnessed being put into play by the Osun State government.

It is however disheartening to see attempts to trivialise this case by focusing solely on the theft of a fowl, ignoring the armed robbery charges and the overwhelming evidence presented in court. Such distortions risk misleading the public and eroding confidence in the judiciary. It is important for citizens to understand that the judiciary operates based on evidence and established legal frameworks, not emotion or public sentiment.

To those who care to know, the judiciary system in Nigeria cutting across the 36 sates and federal capital territory is a pillar of democracy, tasked with delivering justice impartially and without bias. So in the case of Osun State, Justice Falola’s handling of the case in question reflects the professionalism and integrity that underpin the judiciary’s work. The prerogative of mercy, if exercised, is not a repudiation of the court’s judgment but a constitutional tool for tempering justice with clemency.

Members of the public are urged to seek facts and reject narratives designed to undermine the judiciary. Trust in this institution is essential for maintaining law, order, and justice in society. Let us protect the integrity of the judiciary and support its critical role in safeguarding our democracy.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>

The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has warned the Nigeria Customs Service against confiscating foreign rice in open markets.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>

The court gave the order on Wednesday in a judgement following an appeal by Customs against the judgement of the Federal High Court, Kaduna, which discharged and acquitted one Suleiman Mohammed of a two-count charge on the importation of foreign goods.

In the judgement delivered by Justice Ntong Ntong, the three-member panel of justices of the appellate court ordered the Nigeria Customs Service to release 613 bags of foreign rice, alongside 80 bags of millet worth about N200 million, and a truck impounded from Suleiman Mohammed, a 37-year-old businessman, on the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway.

The court also held that: “Kaduna-Zaria Expressway is not a land border and that the Nigeria Customs Service has no right to arrest Suleiman Mohammed on June 14, 2019, and confiscate his goods on the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway, which is outside the contemplation or application of the ban on the importation of foreign rice.”

It further held that the Nigeria Customs Service “has no right to patrol the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway or any highway for the sole purpose of arresting and confiscating any foreign rice on those highways or expressways because they are not land borders.”

Justice Ntong said he had “taken time to read the record of appeal, especially the judgement of the trial court, briefs of parties, statutes, and exhibits, and agreed with the trial court that the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway is not a ‘land border’ as stipulated by the law.”

The court held that: “The defendant was merely a purchaser of rice and millet at the Central Market, Gusau, in Zamfara State, with a receipt of purchase and not an importer, and that the Nigeria Customs Service ought to have arrested the importer and not a mere purchaser from the open market.”

Justice Ntong wondered how a fowl, instead of attacking the person who killed it, pursues the person who is de-feathering it, an Annang idiom, which suggests that the appellant ought not to shut its eyes against importers and instead chase petty traders and consumers who buy in the open market.

The court held that, after all, contraband goods pass through the borders, the main beats of customs.

The Court of Appeal also chided officials of the Nigeria Customs Service for carrying out “a shoddy investigation in the comfort of their office,” holding that “where it has become difficult or impossible for them to return the confiscated rice, millet, and truck, the Nigeria Customs Service Board shall pay to the respondent a sum of money equivalent to the current price or cost of the confiscated items.”

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Ntong Ntong ordered the Nigeria Customs Service to obey and comply with the orders of the Court forthwith.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>