Apo killing: Absence of judge stalls trial
Trial of six police officers at the Abuja High Court over the alleged killing in 2005 of six Abuja auto-spare parts dealers suffered another adjournment on Wednesday.
The adjournment was due to the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Ishaq Bello.
The affected policemen are Danjuma Ibrahim, Othman Abdulsalami (at large), Nicholas Zacharia, Emmanuel Baba, Emmanuel Acheneje and Sadiq Salami.
The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is accusing the police officers of killing Ifeanyi Ozo, Chinedu Meniru, Isaac Ekene, Paulinus Ogbonna, Anthony Nwokike and Tina Arebun.
The deceased, aged between 21 years and 25 years, were returning from a night party in 2005 when they were allegedly killed.
The APO-six trial had suffered several adjournments for continuation of hearing due to the absence of the trial judge.
The case could not proceed as scheduled because the judge, who was said to be on a national assignment, gave his consent for an adjournment.
At the resumed sitting on Wednesday, the prosecution counsel, Chris Uche, and counsel to the first accused, Rickey Tarfa, were told that Justice Bello ‘is still away on his national assignment’.
Bello, who was recently appointed Chairman, Anambra Election Petitions Tribunal, however adjourned the case till July 17 for continuation of hearing.
The News Agency of Nigeria recalls that on July 8, 2013, Justice Bello granted a request by the prosecution to recall a witness, Ede Ayuba, an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
Tarfa, however, objected to the request, challenging the recall of the witness who, he said, tendered guns and other weapons allegedly recovered in connection with the incident.
He said that the request contravened Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
But the prosecuting counsel urged the court to overrule the objection, saying that the witness only came to give his evidence and tendered supporting exhibits.
In his ruling, Bello held that the recall of the witness was in line with the relevant sections of the law, and dismissed the defence counsel’s objection.
Earlier, the judge had admitted certified copies of medical report of the examinations conducted on the deceased as exhibit.
