The High Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has adjourned till February 27, ruling on the admissibility of statements by the 12 accused being tried for the murder of four undergraduates of the University of Port Harcourt (UNIPORT).
The incident occurred in October last year at Umuokiri Aluu in Ikwerre Local Government.
The four victims are Ugonna Obuzor (18) Theatre Art, Lloyd Toku Mike (20) Civil Engineering, Chiadika Biringa (20) Theatre Art and Tekena Elkanah (21) Civil Engineering.
Twelve persons, including the paramount ruler of Aluu community and a retired police sergeant, are being tried for the killing.
Hearing in the matter has since begun. The Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to the Homicide Department of the state police command, who conducted investigation into the murder, Raphael Ezeji, who is also the first prosecution witness (PW1), yesterday continued with his evidence-in-chief.
It has not been an easy task at each of the sittings for the prosecution, led by the Solicitor-General (SG) and the Permanent Secretary in the ministry, Rufus Godwins, to make progress in the hearing, following the continuous resistance by defence counsel on tendering documents in the widely- celebrated murder case.
That of yesterday’s session was not different. At first, efforts by Godwins to tender statements obtained by the police from witnesses, including parents of the four victims, were objected by some of the defence lawyers. Their objection was on the grounds that the witness at the box (Ezeji) was not the right witness through whom the documents ought to be admitted.
They insisted that each of the witnesses, who volunteered and signed the statement, should be docked to tender their documents.
The court, however, admitted them as ‘E1’ to ‘E12’, beginning from those of the victims’ parents.
However, the court reserved till the next adjournment to rule on whether or not the statements by the 12 accused were voluntary or confessional statements as claimed by PW1.
The court will also rule on whether there is need for trial within trial or not.
Counsel to the first accused, Lawal Segun, earlier objected to the admissibility of his client’s statement on the grounds that it was involuntary and called for trial within trial, to ascertain the truth.
Suspected that if granted, there is likelihood that counsel will toe the same line, the judge adjourned for ruling and said the outcome would be the guiding principle for others.
He adjourned for ruling and continuation of hearing.
Source: The Nation
