The trial of an undergraduate of the University of Lagos, Chidinma Ojukwu, the alleged murder suspect of Chief Executive Officer of Super TV, Usifo Ataga, on Monday, 29th January, 2024 took a different twist as the defense counsel takes the path of argument that the death of Usifo Ataga was occasioned by attempt on self-defense as she was to be raped by the deceased.
Ojukwu, a 300-level student of the Department of Mass Communication is being tried before a Lagos State High Court in Tafawa Balewa Square, on nine counts of murder, theft, and forgery.
Below are the texts of the proceedings in court.
29th January, 2024
Continuation of Cross-Examination of PW9 Inspector Bamidele
Appearances: A. O. Oluwafemi with Y. A. Sule and T. E. Oyinlami for the Prosecution.
J. Ezeanyim with C. Uduma for the 1st Defendant.
Babatunde Busari for the 2nd Defendant
C. J. Jiakponna for the 3rd Defendant.
J. A. Ugegbe holding watching brief for the Complainant.
The Witness is reminded that he is on oath.
L:?This information that you gave the court that the 1stDefendant spiked the drink of the Deceased, do you have it recorded in any of the documents that you tendered before the court?
W:?She told me during our interaction and it formed part of my evidence in chief.
L:?Will I be correct to say that this information is not contained in the statements of the 1st and 2nd Defendants?
W:?You are not correct.
L:?My Lord, I apply for the statements of the 1st and 2ndDefendants tendered in the trial including the Investigative Reports tendered by the witness.
L:?Look at the statement of the 1st Defendant (Exhibit P35) and the 2nd Defendant (Exhibit P32) which you recorded in your writing. Can you identify those statements? Both P32 and P35 are in your handwriting? Yes my Lord.
L:?From the Exhibits, please show where the evidence of spiking drink is in those evidence? If it is not there, tell us it is not there so that we can make progress in this case?
W:?My Lord, it is not there.
L:?In your testimony, you showed a video of the state you found the crime scene and you identified all that you saw and recovered from the crime scene?
W:?Yes.
L:?You didn’t show the court any drink that was spiked?
W:?That’s correct.
L:?Do you have?any report of any DNA of the drink that was spiked?
W:?No.
L:?Reconfirm that the 1st Defendant told you that when she and the deceased went back to the apartment, they went with some quantity of loud smoke?
W:?Correct
L:?Can you recollect the exact date when the deceased and the 1st Defendant got to the apartment? Is it the 13th June 2021?
W:?13th of June, my Lord.
L:?Please confirm that the 1st Defendant told you that she and the deceased smoked the loud smoke together and took alcoholic drinks?
W:?Yes.
L:?Please confirm that after they finished the set of smoke, the deceased requested for another set of loud smoke and an order was made for more which was delivered by a dispatch rider while they were at the apartment?
W:?That’s correct.
L:?This dispatch rider that brought the additional loud smoke, did you interact with him in the course of your investigation at any point in time?
W:?We put in our best but we didn’t get him, my Lord.
L:?Please reconfirm that in P35, the 1st Defendant told you that there was a struggle between the deceased and the 1stDefendant when he demanded for more sex which she refused?
W:?Yes, my Lord
L:?You told the court that in self-defence, the 1st Defendant picked a knife and stabbed the deceased?
W:?Yes, my Lord.
L:?Please explain in short detail how you reconcile the deceased who was drugged and whose drink was spiked with the drug, ROPHENOL which potency you said can knock out a person when a person takes one tablet and the fight that took place in the apartment?
W:?The essence of going into the apartment is to enjoy themselves, to eat, drink and have sex. He was asking for more sex which she denied him that led to the struggle was established during investigation. It was also found that the deceased’s drink was spiked by the 1st Defendant to gain a particular profit from the Deceased.
L:?Is there any document where you derived the above information you just gave?
W:?It is in my investigation that I found this out.
L:?You recovered a UBA Bank statement in the name of Mary Johnson?
W:?Yes
L:?Please tell the court the date when you recovered this document?
W:?It was after the death of the Deceased on 23rd June 2021.
L:?Can you tell the court the relationship between the bank statement and the death of the deceased?
W:?The Bank Statement is not in the name of the 1stDefendant. There is no nexus with the death of the deceased.
L:?Please confirm that you wrote a Letter to UBA with the title – Investigation activities on the Murder of Usifo Ataga Michael? Am I correct?
W:?Correct
L:?In response to your letter, UBA wrote that no such account exist in their record?
W:?That’s correct.
L:?Are you aware of the charges before this court against the 2nd Defendant?
W:?Yes
L:?Are you aware that in respect of this UBA account, the 2nd Defendant is answering the charge of making the UBA bank statement?
W:?That’s correct.
L:?Please confirm that you didn’t find the UBA Bank Statement in the custody of the 2nd Defendant?
W:?I confirm my Lord.
L:?Also confirm that the 2nd Defendant told you that the UBA Bank statement was gotten from a named person in Lagos Island?
W:?Yes my Lord.
L:?In the Statement of the 2nd Defendant (P32), he stated the name of the person he got the statement from? The paragraph read – “ I also received the sum of N25,000 (Twenty-Five Thousand Naira) from Chidinma Adaora to process Driver’s Licence and the UBA and Access Bank account statements was processed by one Mr. Bolaji who lives at Lagos Island.”
?Did you interact with Mr. Bolaji during the course of your investigation?
W:?I asked the 2nd Defendant and he said that he didn’t have Mr. Bolaji’s address.
L:?Did you ask for his phone number?
W:?I asked the 2nd Defendant for Mr. Bolaji’s phone number and he said that he didn’t have it.
L:?The 2nd Defendant didn’t make the UBA and Access Bank statements?
W:?No, he didn’t but he told me that that’s what brought him and the 1st Defendant together to know each other.
L:?Did the 2nd Defendant process the Bank statements?
W:?It was processed for the 2nd Defendant.
L:?The letter by UBA to you (Exhibit P20) is that the UBA account number in the UBA Bank Statement (Exhibit P21) as at the date of your inquiry, didn’t exist in the bank records?
W:?That’s the response of the bank – the account doesn’t exist in their record.
L:?Did you make a further inquiry whether the account existed before the date of the incident?
W:?No, I didn’t make any further inquiry
L:?You also referred to an Access Bank Account Statement (Exhibit P22) that you recovered from the 1st Defendant? Do you have any letter from Access Bank that the Bank statement was forged or it was made by the 2nd Defendant or disowned by the Bank?
W:?No, there was no letter from Access Bank.
?Please look at the Access Bank Statement (P22) - Exhibit P22 is shown to the witness.
L:?Was the account held in the name of the Deceased?
W:?There was no letter from the bank though we wrote a letter to Access Bank on this statement of account requesting for a statement of account for the account number from the bank. The bank refused to reply us but my investigation shows that the account number doesn’t belong to the Deceased, it belongs to someone in Port Harcourt and the Bank said do.
L:?Where is the letter you wrote to Access Bank?
W:?A copy should be there (in the court’s file).
L:?That your discovery that the account belonged to someone in Port Harcourt, is it contained in your evidence?
W:?No.
L:?Apart from the dispatch rider who delivered the parcel to the deceased and the 1st Defendant, you don’t have anything before the Honourable Court that links the 2ndDefendant to being present in that apartment?
W:?That’s correct, my Lord
L:?The 2nd Defendant told you that he got the loud smoke and ROPHENOL from a Mallam who sells things by the roadside at Shitta, Surulere?
W:?That’s correct my Lord
L:?Did you go to the Mallam at Shitta, Surulere to confirm if the information was true?
W:?No, because the 2nd Defendant said that he got it from an itinerant hawker who sells goods from place to place so he has no specific address in Shitta, Surulere.
L:?Please show the witness Exhibit P32 to read from the 1stpage, line 17 – “I ?confirmed that ROPHENOL when wrapped looked like other cigarettes.
?So you didn’t speak with the Mallam?
W:?I didn’t speak with him and your client assured me that I will not find the Mallam ?there.
L: ?You described the 2nd Defendant in your investigative report (Exhibit D3) as a ?drug baron, it read – “the drug baron Adedapo Quadri who supplied the drugs ?that was used to lace the deceased’s drink that led to his death”.
?How did you come to this conclusion that the 2nd Defendant is a drug baron and ?did you ask the 2nd Defendant what he does for a living?
W:?He told me that he supplies wears (clothes) to people on demand. As regard the ?drug baron, he doesn’t need a warehouse to sell drugs.
L:?Did you inform or involve the NDLEA in your investigation of the drug baron?
W:?We didn’t involve the NDLEA.
L:?You told the court that you know the 2nd Defendant?
W:?I know him only during the investigation.
L:?And you know the charges against him before this Honourable Court?
W:?Yes
L:?Is there any charge of drug peddling in this suit?
W:?No, it isn’t there. It was the DPP that gave the legal advise.
L:?Please read the conclusion of your two investigative reports – Exhibit D2 and D3.
W:?A prima facie case of murder was established against Chidinma Adaora; ?conspiracy to commit murder is established against Chidinma Adaora and ?Adedapo Quadri; a charge of obstruction of justice against Babalola.
L:?Nothing in your investigative reports had a charge on drug peddling?
W:?No.
L:?On the conclusion of your investigation, the case file was sent to the DPP?
W:?Yes.
L:?Did you see the copy of the Legal Advice?
W:?Yes
L:?If you see a copy of the Legal Advice, can you identify it?
W:?Yes.
L:?Can you confirm that this is a Certified True Copy of the DPP Legal Advice?
W:?Yes.
Court:?The Certified True Copy of the DPP Legal Advice dated 20th August 2021 and ?marked as Exhibit D6.
L:?It is due to your report and investigation that the DPP issued the Legal Advice?
W:?Yes my Lord.?
L:?Did the 2nd Defendant, during your investigation, your interaction with him or in ?his written statement, inform you that he killed the Deceased or conspired to kill ?the late Michael Usifo Ataga?
W:?No, he never old me that he killed the Deceased.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW9 BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT COUNSEL
L:?Tell the court your names again?
W:?Bamidele Olusegun.
L:?Do you know the charge against the 3rd Defendant?
W:?Offence of receiving stolen property
L:?You identified her name by virtue of the investigation?
W:?Yes
L:?She never made any statement on what killed the Deceased?
W:?Yes.
L:?The 3rd Defendant said that the stolen item – the phone was a gift from her sister, ?the 1st Defendant?
W:?That is what she said.
L:?The 3rd Defendant told you that she saw the viral online message that the 1st ?Defendant was accused of murder, she came to the Police Station?
W: ?Yes, after much persuasion.
L:?Did you go there to arrest her?
W: ?No, we called her to tell her that the phone in her possession belonged to someone ?who is now dead and she came to the office.
L:?At your office, after investigation, you granted her administrative bail?
W:?Yes.
L:?Can you remember the questions that she told you that she asked the 1st ?Defendant when receiving the phone?
W:?Yes: she asked the 1st Defendant how she came about the big phones. The ?response was that it was a gift from her boyfriend.
L:?From your investigation, the 3rd Defendant is not aware that the phone was stolen?
W:?No. she isn’t aware.
END OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
NO RE-EXAMINATION
Matter adjourned to 20th February 2024 for Continuation of Trial
Leave a Reply