Maryam Sanda’s trial: Witness disappears in court

A prosecution witness in the trial of Maryam Sanda for alleged
killing of her husband, Bilyamin Bello, disappeared after arriving
in court on Monday.

Mr. Bello was son of a former national chairman of the Peoples
Democratic Party, Haliru Bello.

The witness, Alhassan Abdulmumin, had arrived the court premises
with the prosecution team to testify in the two-count charge of
culpable homicide brought against Mrs. Sanda and other defendants
by the Police.

Others accused alongside Mrs. Sanda are her mother, Maimuna
Aliyu, her brother Aliyu Sanda, and her house help, Sadiya
Aminu.

The prosecution counsel, James Idachaba, while explaining the
disappearance of the witness, said Mr. Abdulmumin left the court
because he probably thought his testimony would not be heard based
on the issues that arose during Monday’s court hearing.

Mrs. Sanda and the other accused are facing trial at a High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory for the alleged offence
committed in November 2017.

After several attempts to secure bail, the first defendant was
allowed temporary freedom by the trial judge, Yusuf Halilu, with
several conditions, including an undertaking from the defendant’s
father to produce her in court till the end of the trial.

After granting the first defendant bail, the court adjourned the
matter till Monday, for continuation of hearing.

When the hearing resumed on Monday, however, the defence
counsel, Joseph Daudu, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to
entertain the matter.

Mr. Daudu said the charge sheet did not comply with
constitutional provisions and urged the court to dismiss the charge
against his client.

Mr. Idachaba, however, objected to the motion filed by Mr. Daudu
and prayed the court to continue with the matter, as planned during
the last adjourned date.

Reacting to Mr. Daudu’s application, the judge said it should
wait until the substantive matter is being entertained.

However, when the court asked the prosecution to produce its
witness, the witness could not be found within the court
premises.

“We arrived the court together, My Lord,” said Mr. Idachaba who
further explained that he suspected that the witness erroneously
believed the application challenging the court’s jurisdiction had
rendered it impossible for the matter to proceed on Monday.

Subsequently, the case was adjourned till April 19 and 20.

A prosecution witness in the trial of Maryam Sanda for alleged
killing of her husband, Bilyamin Bello, disappeared after arriving
in court on Monday.

Mr. Bello was son of a former national chairman of the Peoples
Democratic Party, Haliru Bello.

The witness, Alhassan Abdulmumin, had arrived the court premises
with the prosecution team to testify in the two-count charge of
culpable homicide brought against Mrs. Sanda and other defendants
by the Police.

Others accused alongside Mrs. Sanda are her mother, Maimuna
Aliyu, her brother Aliyu Sanda, and her house help, Sadiya
Aminu.

The prosecution counsel, James Idachaba, while explaining the
disappearance of the witness, said Mr. Abdulmumin left the court
because he probably thought his testimony would not be heard based
on the issues that arose during Monday’s court hearing.

Mrs. Sanda and the other accused are facing trial at a High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory for the alleged offence
committed in November 2017.

After several attempts to secure bail, the first defendant was
allowed temporary freedom by the trial judge, Yusuf Halilu, with
several conditions, including an undertaking from the defendant’s
father to produce her in court till the end of the trial.

After granting the first defendant bail, the court adjourned the
matter till Monday, for continuation of hearing.

When the hearing resumed on Monday, however, the defence
counsel, Joseph Daudu, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to
entertain the matter.

Mr. Daudu said the charge sheet did not comply with
constitutional provisions and urged the court to dismiss the charge
against his client.

Mr. Idachaba, however, objected to the motion filed by Mr. Daudu
and prayed the court to continue with the matter, as planned during
the last adjourned date.

Reacting to Mr. Daudu’s application, the judge said it should
wait until the substantive matter is being entertained.

However, when the court asked the prosecution to produce its
witness, the witness could not be found within the court
premises.

“We arrived the court together, My Lord,” said Mr. Idachaba who
further explained that he suspected that the witness erroneously
believed the application challenging the court’s jurisdiction had
rendered it impossible for the matter to proceed on Monday.

Subsequently, the case was adjourned till April 19 and 20.