The convict would upon good conduct enjoy a parole subject to the approval of the president after serving 32 years.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, held that the prosecution was able to prove the allegations against the convict beyond reasonable doubt.
Kolawole said that the convict’s defence was insistent with the facts contained in his statement.
“It is clear from the facts before the court that Ebuware did have the information on the planned bombing of Abuja on October 1, 2010 but kept it away from the authorities.
“It was also confirmed from the series of record of call logs before the court as exhibit clearly shows that the convict had fore-knowledge of the blast.
“You Edmund Ebuware, charged for treasonable felony under Section 40 of the Criminal Code for the role you played in the unfortunate bombing of innocent persons on Oct 1, 2010 is hereby found guilty as charged.
“You are, therefore, committed to a maximum life imprison but shall by good conduct subject to the approval of the president granted a parole after serving 32 years.
“I am aware of the fact that the second leg of the pronouncement is not yet part of the country’s practice but we hope that this decision will ignite an amendment of that part of the law to give room for parole.
“I am moved to give you a succour to enjoy a parole because of your young age, wife and your very young family.
“This should be a lesson to young people who are bent on destroying our country through terror act. I view you as a young man who is in a hurry to become relevant in our complex society,” Kolawole said.
Others charged with the bombing were Charles Okah and Obi Nwabueze, while the fourth accused, Tiemkemfa Osuvwo, died in Kuje prison on March 2, 2012.
Ebuware had pleaded for a separate trial as according to him, his inclusion among the principal accused persons would be a distraction to his defence.
The court on May 3, 2012 removed his name from the list of suspects charged with the Independence Day bombing.
The accused person was charged for hiding information on the motive of the other accused persons.
The Criminal Code upon which the convict was charged prescribed a maximum of life imprison for the offence.
Earlier, Mr. Goddy Uche, the Counsel to the accused person, during adoption of his client’s address, said that the extra-judicial statement obtained from his client should be discountenanced.
Uche submitted that there was no admission by the accused person to indicate that he committed the offence.
He further argued that the charge brought against the accused person was not known to law, adding, “Until Henry Okah was tried and convicted for similar offence, the trial remains an injustice.”
He said that the prosecution witnesses brought to testify on the matter did not establish anything against the accused person to suggest the extent of his involvement.
Uche said that their testimonies were against the Evidence Act.
Dr. Alex Izinyon, the Counsel to the State Security Service (SSS), in his address, submitted that Section 40 (a) (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code negated the submission that the accused person could only be brought to justice when the principal offender, Okah was brought to justice.
He explained, “The intention of Okah which was verbalised in a conversation with the accused person via the telephone eventually took place on the Independence Day of 2010.”
Izinyon submitted that the elements needed to commence the prosecution of the accused person were thoroughly considered before heading to court.
The prosecutor said that one of the elements established the fact that Okah and the rest accused persons planned to commit treason against President Goodluck Jonathan.
He said that other two elements were that the accused person had knowledge of the issue and did not disclose it to the highest authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment