Exclusive Excerpts9: Law Personality Interview with Prof. Peter Umeadi, Former Chief Judge of Anambra State contd as He elucidates his most challenging case at the Bench.
Prof, can you share with us the case that gave you the greatest challenge and test your professional competence and how did you manage to?
The case in Charge No. HN/5C/95, The State v Onuegbu and Anor in which judgement was delivered on 20/7/2001 by Umeadi J (as he then was) at the High Court Nnewi, unreported, come to mind. The matter began denovo on 16/6/97. The particulars of the offence were that the 1st and 2nd defendant wife and daughter to the deceased respectively on or about 23/3/90 at Abubor Nnewichi Nnewi in Nnewi Judicial Division unlawfully liked the deceased (husband and father to the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively).From the evidence at the trial the man was wont to send live chicken to 1st defendant to make chicken pepper soup which the deceased would eat on return from the market. On this day he returned and the chicken pepper soup was not ready. The 1st defendant said the little boy who brought the chicken home did not tie it properly so the chicken freed itself and ran off. The 1st defendant, the little boy and other persons joined in chasing the chicken and by the time it was caught it was late which accounts for the meal not being ready on time. The deceased and 1st defendant entered in an argument which degenerated into a fight. It was said that the 2nd defendant joined the fight. The deceased fell on the ground and he was taken to the hospital where he died after ten days. The Principal Medical Officer with the State Ministry of Health posted to the General Hospital at the time issued a report on post mortem findings and gave evidence as PW4 part of which was summed up thus inter alia… “The medical doctor Pw4 gave evidence that on examination of the corpse, he found lineal bruises on the posterior and anterior aspect of the head of the deceased. PW4 stated that in his opinion the injuries must have been caused by the deceased being beaten either with a metallic object leading to sub-dural hemorrhage. That as a result the deceased would have died of either pain or increased inter-cranial pressure. PW4 admitted in cross examination that if a man falls with that part of the body hitting against a metallic object or strong wooden object the same lineal bruises will occurs depending the distance of the fall. In re-examination however PW4 clarifies that one fall by a man could not give rise to lineal bruises in posterior and anterior-aspects of the head at one and the same time.
I accepted as credible the evidence of the medical doctor PW4 and I believe in the opinion he gave as the cause of death of the deceased. In fact there is no contrary opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased”. There was PW1 whose evidence was summed thus inter alia “It is the evidence of PW1 that on 12/3/90 she saw the 1st and 2nd accused persons fighting the deceased. That she PW1 saw 1st accused first hitting the deceased on the forehead with an object. Then on one of those hitting the deceased held onto the object and the blow from the object landed on the left shoulder of the deceased. Then the object fell off the hand of the 1st accused person and was picked up by the 2nd accused person who started hitting the deceased with the same object at the back of the head. PW1 went on to testify that from where she was she saw the deceased fall down from those beating. At this point PW1 said she came down from the balcony of the two storey building where she observed all she said and came into the compound of the deceased. That while PW1 was in the compound of the deceased she saw that 1st accused person was with gallon containing palm wine which she was spraying on the fallen deceased. That 1st and 2nd accused persons were also pouring water on the deceased where he lay. Then PW1 started shouting and people gathered and helped the deceased to a seat. At this time PW1 said she left the scene of the incident for a while.” The evidence of PW1 was the only eye witness of the incident and was subject of fierce attack from the defence from diverse angles. The monkey wrench was thrown in this manner. The Police Inspector who was a corporal in the team that investigated the matter since 1990 turned up at the trial to give evidence for the 1st and 2nd accused person as DW1 against the prosecution. He abandoned the head of the investigating team who testified for the prosecution as PW6. PW6 at the time said that it was the DW1 in 1990 who recommended that the 1st accused be charged to court for manslaughter. The sole aim of this switch was to mar the evidence of PW1 the only eye witness to the incident. This development led the prosecution to apply for a visit to the locus in quo which the defense opposed but which the Court allowed. After the visit to the locus in quo, the parties reassembled in court and gave evidence of what transpired at the locus in quo. The judgement was summed up as follows inter alia. “I think the feet of clay of DW1 was exposed when he unsuccessfully tried to put a building on the space of the “german floor” on the date of the investigation where it was not there as I have shown. DW1 continually boasted that he conducted almost the entire investigation, but went on to puncture himself by quickly adding, he did so under the supervision of PW6. The visit to the locus in quo opened my eyes that PW6 was physically there and monitored the DW1 as if he had the premonition that DW1 will appear on a different side of the barn. DW1 must have been of the impression that contradiction coming from one of the investigating team would be capable of creating doubt and having the matter decided in favour of the accused persons. He must know by now that he was mistaken. The Police are not part of the crime. The Police come in after the crime to investigate except in preemptive instance. No matter what one does, crime has a way of leaving its own clues. In this instance the unobstructed view of PW1, the evidence of PW4 the medical doctor and the evidence of PW6 Chief Vincent Agbo, retired Inspector of Police who kept the faith are enough in my mind to establish the guilt of the 1st and 2nd accused persons. I think that DW1 is not a witness of truth. As I have said earlier, on what basis would even the 1st accused person be recommended for trial for manslaughter by DW1 without the favourable statement of PW1. How could a Police Officer who gave evidence under oath that he recommended that an accused person be charged for manslaughter come against the witness whose statement could only have given rise to his initial conclusion. DW1 is no more than a turn coat. Let him continue to get his rapid promotion and maybe it is people of his like that will never allow Nigerian Police Force to be reformed for good. I disbelieve the evidence of DW1.” It was held that the prosecution proved the charge against 1st & 2nd accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and 1st & 2nd accused were found guilty as charged and convicted. The work in this tortuous case did not end with the verdict. The offence for manslaughter is defined at Section 272 of the Criminal Code, Laws of Anambra State 1991. This definition stems from Section 270 of the Criminal Code (supra). The penalty for the offence of manslaughter is to be found at Section 279 of the Criminal Code and it is imprisonment for life. After the allocutus, I took cognizance of the fact that the 2nd accused was a minor of 15 years old on the date the crime was committed though she was 24 years old when she gave evidence. I called up PW3 in open court and had a lengthy talk with him. He first accepted that 2nd accused was his half-sister and both PW3 and 2nd accused are children of the deceased. I reasoned that it would be a double loss for one family when their father is deceased and his half sister be sent to prison. That at her age a prison term would ravage the remainder of her adult life. He accepted to take 2nd accused back and take care for her as the new head of the family. Bolstered by the compassion and charity of PW3, the 1st accused was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment without option of fine. The 2nd accused was given an option of fine which was paid in lieu of her prison term. With due modesty that conformed with the good law on sentencing. See also 2 Samuel 14:4-11.