Presiding judge, Justice Ukpa Ebitam, inside a matter implemented against Mr. Godwin Elewanna who had been accused of killing a 22-year-old boy, Douglas Ojugbo on March 10, 2015 following suspicion that the victim was getting cheating together with his daughter, Whim, through the Mix River State Government will provide judgment on November 16th.

Justice Ukpa Ebitam, however, remanded the accused imprisonment child custody and adjourned the problem to November 16th for ruling around the no-situation submission.

It had been alleged that Elewanna had shot Douglas within the arm and leg and permitted the boy to bleed to dying then he bundled him into his vehicle and required the corpse towards the Federal Housing Police Station in Calabar.

Lawyer towards the accused, Mr. Clement Ukaegbu, in the no-situation submission once the matter (HC/9c/2017) was known as in the High Court (9) in Calabar, had amongst others contended that one of the witnesses, Mr. Augustine Ojugbo (father of the deceased) didn’t give evidence in the court or mix-examined around the authenticity of the claims.

“We submit in line with the totality of evidence before honourable court that the accused is titled to no-situation submission just because a situation is not made from the accused person to warrant his defence,” Ukaegbu’s address read partly.

However, as a result of no-situation submission, the prosecution team brought by Mr. Eneji Amajama, of the Department of Public Prosecutions, state Ministry of Justice, noted that within the course of trial the prosecution had known as three key witnesses such as the mother of the deceased, Mrs. Maria Ojugbo.

He noted that it’s the position of what the law states that to sustain the charge of murder, the prosecution team needs to prove that the deceased died with the act of the accused that caused the dying and that if the act was intentional.

Amajama stated the problem for determination was if the prosecution makes out a prima facie situation requiring, a minimum of, some explanation in the accused.

His address read partly, “My Lord, we submit that at this time, the extended evaluation of prosecution evidence as made by the accused part of his address is unnecessary. What’s needed as set through the Top Court inside a plethora of government bodies.

“In particular, the instances of Abacha V State (2002) FWLR Pt. 118 and Tongo V COP (2007) 4 SCNJ 221, is that at this time the prosecution is just likely to establish (show) reasonable grounds within the situation for proceeding.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here