LACK OF EVIDENCE: YOLA COURT FREES MAN SENT TO PRISON FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THEFT

 

A Yola High Court in Adamawa State on Tuesday discharged and acquitted a man, Yakubu Babangida Isiyaku, earlier sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with the option of #10,000 fine for the offence of theft.

Recall that a Criminal Area Court number I in Yola presided over by Honourable Umar A. Gangs, had on 21 February, 2018, convicted Yakubu Babangida Isiyaku to 6 months in prison over allegations of theft contrary to sections 286 and 316 of the Penal Code .

Yakubu Babangida was arraigned before the Criminal Area Court over alleged stealing of 1 Techno GSM mobile phone valued at #6000, Geone GSM mobile phone, #10,000, 4 pieces of wrappers, #12,000, 4 pairs of palm shoes, #5,500, 2 caps, #5000, 1 bag, #6000 and cash #190,000, totalling #234,500.

He was however convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment or #10,000 fine for the said offence by the Honourable Judge.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the convict went and filed notice of appeal dated and filed on the 13th March, 2020 at the Honourable Justice Abdul-Azeez Waziri led High Court, and urged the Court to allow the appeal.

The appellant further asked the Court to set aside the judgement of the trial Court, and that he should be discharged and acquitted, adding that all the fines be set aside.

Delivering its judgement on the matter, Justice Waziri, invalidated the decision of the lower court, declaring that the trial Court was without jurisdiction having failed to comply with the mandatory provision of the law.

Justice Waziri stated that there was no valid arrangement upon which the appellant was properly convicted and sentenced, saying there was no evidence of plea entered by the Appellant.

According to him, the law provided that the charge shall be read to and explained to the accused person in a language he understands and be called to enter his plea as to whether he is guilty or not and be recorded accordingly.

He stated that the Court was not able to see where the charge was read to the Appellant, explained to him in a language he understands and his plea taken, saying that lack of the aforestated evidence has rendered the whole trial a nullity.