Alleged libel: Ekiti Court begins trial of Facebook offender

6 min read 1,154 words 3 views

The Federal High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti on Monday admitted
the contentious statement allegedly made by an accused person, Ayan
Olubunmi, in police custody as exhibit that would be relevant to
his trial.

There has been controversy surrounding the admissibility of a
statement allegedly signed by the accused person in police custody
while being interrogated on alleged publication of damaging video
and photographs on Facebook against one Asari Monica.

The case with charge number FHC/AD/17C/2017 involving the
Attorney General of the Federation, Inspector General of police VS
Ayan Olubunmi began 31st of May in Aisegba Ekiti in Gbonyin local
government area of Ekiti State.

The offence, according to the prosecution, was contrary to
Section 24 of the Cybercrime prohibition Act 2015.

Following complaint to the police by the claimant (Monica) that
her reputation was damaged through offensive publication, the
accused person was arrested and taken to Ode Ekiti Divisional
Police Station where he made a statement he later said was written
under duress and should not be admitted in evidence.

His counsel, R.O. Agbaje had urged the trial Judge, Justice
Taiwo Taiwo to allow for a trial-within-trial to test the
admissibility of the statement, which he obliged.

But the prosecution counsel, D.O. Oyewole urged the court to
admit the statement, saying the defence had shown no cause to
vitiate the statement.

The Judge said he decided to accede to the foregoing request
(trial-within-trial) because, as it is trite in law that it remains
the last and best option anytime a defence claimed that a statement
was not voluntarily made.

The prosecution paraded three witnesses: Asari Monica(PW1),
Rashidi Babatunde (PW2) and Jimoh Ariyo(PW3, ALSO a police officer)
while the
defendant was the only witness for himself in the case.

Delivering his ruling after the trial-within –trial, the Judge
averred that the accused person failed vehemently to prove that he
was actually coerced to consent to the contents of the statement
.

Justice Taiwo said three elements are always common in forcing a
suspect to make a statement under duress: they are: Oppression,
Threat and Torture, saying the accused person failed to establish
any of the three in a way that could vitiate the statement.

“It is no doubt that the accused person can read and write and
he had never denied the signature appended on the statements he
made on the 12th January and 30th January, 2017 at the police
station.

“Again, he failed to corroborate his assertion that he was
tortured while forcing him to sign the statement by the police and
sustained injuries.

“He didn’t call a witness or showed medical report or asked any
prison official to testify that there were injuries on his bodies
when he was in their custody. I found this difficult to
believe.

“The defendant didn’t controvert the fact that the statement was
written in a daylight and I found his claim that the police(they)
beat him up while also owning up later that it was only one
Corporal Osobu that was present when the statement was being
written contradictory and afterthought.

“Let me say that I am satisfied with the prosecution on his
claim that the defence agreed with the contents of the letter, duly
signed by him with date appended .

“The statement seems admissible and is hereby admitted as
exhibit A”, Justice Taiwo ruled.

The judge adjourned the case to April 18 for commencement of
trial.