Home Blog Page 9

‘So Egregious’: Judge throws out murder case against father accused of killing daughter’s alleged rapist

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — A judge has dismissed a murder charge against an Arkansas man accused of killing the alleged sexual abuser of his 13-year-old daughter, delivering a stinging rebuke of law enforcement conduct and bringing an abrupt end to one of the state’s most closely watched criminal cases.

The ruling was not based on a finding that Aaron Spencer acted lawfully when he shot and killed 67-year-old Michael Fosler in 2024.

Read Also: Heartbroken father says, “I’ll never forgive the schoolteacher who raped my four daughters

Instead, Special Circuit Court Judge Ralph Wilson Jr. concluded that law enforcement’s handling of crucial evidence was so deeply flawed that the prosecution could no longer proceed.

“The court finds that conduct by law enforcement was so egregious that dismissal of this case is warranted,” Wilson wrote in a decision issued Thursday.

The extraordinary ruling came just weeks before Spencer was due to stand trial on a second-degree murder charge.

The case has drawn intense public attention not only because of its emotionally charged facts, but also because Spencer is now the Republican nominee for sheriff in Lonoke County and will appear on the ballot in November.

At the heart of the dispute was a missing memory card from a dashboard camera that may have captured key moments surrounding the fatal shooting.

Court records show that investigators recovered the dash camera from Fosler’s truck after the incident. However, the device’s internal settings were not preserved, its battery was allowed to drain, and the memory card that was reportedly inside the camera when it was seized later disappeared.

The judge’s decision paints a troubling picture of evidence management.

According to court filings, the detective who collected the camera acknowledged that it was not immediately logged into evidence and was instead kept in his personal office rather than secured in an evidence room.

By the time forensic examiners received the device, potentially critical data had been lost.

Spencer’s legal team argued that the missing footage and audio could have supported his claim that he acted to protect his daughter from a man accused of repeatedly abusing her.

Fosler was out on bond at the time of the shooting after being charged with dozens of sexual offences involving Spencer’s daughter.

According to court records, Spencer woke up on the night of the incident to discover his daughter missing. He later found her in the passenger seat of a vehicle being driven by Fosler.

Prosecutors argued that Spencer deliberately pursued and killed Fosler and could have contacted law enforcement instead.

But Spencer consistently maintained that he acted to protect his child from a dangerous predator.

The dismissal represents a remarkable collapse of a prosecution that had been expected to test the boundaries between vigilantism, parental protection and the criminal justice system.

For Judge Wilson, however, the decisive issue was not the morality of Spencer’s actions.

It was whether a defendant could receive a fair trial after investigators failed to preserve evidence that may have been central to determining exactly what happened.

The answer, he concluded, was no.

The ruling effectively ends a case that had become a lightning rod for debate over parental rights, child protection and accountability within the justice system.

But it also leaves behind a separate and troubling question: how evidence that may have captured the most important moments in the case disappeared while in the custody of law enforcement.

Courtroom Takeover! Stray cat halts murder trial, chases Judge out of court

BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe — Murder trials are rarely interrupted by anything more unusual than legal arguments or procedural disputes. But at the Bulawayo High Court this week, proceedings ground to a halt after an unexpected visitor seized control of the courtroom and refused to leave.

The unlikely disruption came during a special sitting of the court on June 3, when a stray cat wandered into the courtroom during the murder trial of 19-year-old Bright Tshuma.

According to the National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe (NPAZ), the animal slowly entered the courtroom before unleashing what officials described as a loud and mournful wail that immediately disrupted proceedings.

“There was drama at the Bulawayo High Court special sitting on the 3rd of June 2026 when a brown stray cat slowly walked into the courtroom and unleashed a mournful, ear-piercing wail,” the authority said.

The interruption proved significant enough for the presiding judge to temporarily suspend proceedings and order the animal’s removal.

What followed was a scene few court officials could have anticipated.

Police officers, prison guards and the court caretaker were called in to escort the feline intruder from the courtroom. Instead, the operation descended into a prolonged standoff.

According to the NPAZ, four police officers, four prison guards and the caretaker all attempted to remove the cat, but the animal resisted every effort.

As word of the unusual courtroom drama spread through the courthouse, curious spectators gathered at the entrance to watch the unfolding spectacle.

The growing audience appeared to make matters worse.

“The growing audience only worsened the cat’s stage fright,” the authority said.

Rather than retreating, the cat darted across the courtroom, weaving through the space before taking refuge beneath the judge’s bench, where it reportedly reacted aggressively to further attempts to remove it.

“The cat neatly tucked itself under the judge’s bench and responded in a hostile manner to further attempts made to remove it,” the NPAZ said.

After repeated efforts failed, court officials made an extraordinary decision: abandon the courtroom altogether.

The authority later joked that the animal had successfully executed a “hostile takeover” of the court.

“It was successful in its hostile takeover of the courtroom, which was then abandoned and the matter continued to be heard in a different courtroom,” the statement said.

Despite the interruption, the murder trial ultimately proceeded in another courtroom.

Tshuma, who is from Nkulumane in Bulawayo, was standing trial on allegations that he fatally stabbed a man using what prosecutors described as a Colombia CCCP AK47 knife.

Following the conclusion of the trial, the court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

Yet despite the gravity of the case, it was the courtroom’s uninvited visitor that captured public attention.

For a brief period on an otherwise routine court day, a stray cat managed to do what few defendants, lawyers or litigants ever achieve: force an entire High Court proceeding to relocate.

And unlike most courtroom disruptions, this one left behind a story likely to be remembered long after the verdict was delivered.

Tinubu’s 2027 presidential bid and Hamzat’s Lagos governorship nomination highlight APC’s commitment to competence — Hajia Hansatu Zannah

Hajia Hansatu Zannah, member of the Governing Council of AU Agenda 2063 and Ambassador Plenipotentiary, has commended the democratic process that produced President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate and the emergence of Lagos State Deputy Governor, Dr. Kadri Obafemi Hamzat, as the party’s consensus gubernatorial nominee.

Hansatu, widow of former Borno State Deputy Governor Zannah Umar Mustapha, stated: “The outcome of this electoral process, which favored President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Dr. Kadri Obafemi Hamzat, clearly reflects the APC’s strategic commitment to continuity, technical expertise, and proven governance.”

She described the primaries as a demonstration of internal democracy, noting that the results represent a strong vote of confidence in the President’s leadership and reform agenda.

In a statement released on Friday, she emphasized: “Tinubu’s emergence as the party’s flagbearer is a testament to his political experience, resilience, and unwavering dedication to national development.”

Hansatu highlighted that despite Nigeria’s economic and social challenges, President Tinubu has continued to pursue policies aimed at stabilizing the economy, improving infrastructure, and positioning the nation for sustainable growth.

She urged Nigerians to rally behind the President in the pursuit of lasting peace, unity, and prosperity, while calling on political leaders, youths, and stakeholders to prioritize national interest above partisan considerations.She further noted that Tinubu’s victory should serve as a unifying force for APC members and Nigerians across political, ethnic, and religious divides.

Congratulating Dr. Hamzat on his nomination, Hansatu remarked: “The impressive academic credentials of Dr. Kadri Obafemi Hamzat, who holds a Ph.D. in System Process Engineering from Cranfield University, coupled with his decades of institutional and executive experience, make his nomination a triumph of competence and capacity.

“His record of service from Commissioner for Science & Technology to Commissioner for Works & Infrastructure, and as the first person in Lagos history to serve two full terms as deputy governor embodies the spirit of excellence for which Lagos is renowned.”

She praised APC members for their peaceful conduct, loyalty, and solidarity throughout the primaries, while urging opposition parties to embrace issue-based politics and contribute constructively to Nigeria’s democratic development.

Concluding her remarks, Hajia Hansatu stated: “The beauty of democracy lies in its ability to give every citizen a voice. It requires leaders to serve selflessly and the populace to remain informed, engaged, and accountable. Thankfully, this is what APC represents. I wish both President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Dr. Kadri Obafemi Hamzat resounding success in 2027.”

After Admitting Breaches, what did NBC do about Big Brother Naija? Lawyer demands answers

ABUJA — A constitutional lawyer and public affairs advocate, Maduabuchi O. Idam, has renewed his campaign against Big Brother Naija, demanding that the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) disclose what action, if any, it has taken after allegedly acknowledging that the reality television show breached provisions of the NBC Code.

In a fresh Freedom of Information (FOI) request addressed to the Director-General of the NBC, Idam accused the broadcasting regulator of failing to communicate the outcome of its review of the programme despite previously indicating that the show had contravened broadcasting standards.

The request comes as organisers of the popular reality television programme prepare for another season, with auditions reportedly already concluded or underway.

For Idam, the issue extends beyond a single television programme. He argues that it raises broader questions about regulatory consistency, public morality, and the enforcement of broadcasting standards in Nigeria.

“The pursuit of a society free from economic exploitation, human rights violations and the erosion of public policy and decency is not a path I consciously chose; rather, it is a responsibility that found me,” he said.

The lawyer disclosed that he had earlier petitioned the NBC in 2025, urging the commission to either ban or regulate Big Brother Naija over what he described as obscene, indecent and profane content.

According to him, the NBC responded in August 2025 and acknowledged concerns raised about the programme, informing him that the matter was under review and that a decision would be taken to ensure compliance with broadcasting regulations.

However, Idam said the programme continued uninterrupted until the end of its season, while no further communication was made available to him regarding any regulatory action taken by the commission.

In the new FOI request, he is seeking details of all measures adopted by the NBC following the alleged breach, including sanctions, directives, guidelines, compliance mechanisms or other regulatory interventions.

“I am compelled to request information regarding the measures put in place by the Commission to police, regulate, sanction, or otherwise ensure compliance by the programme with acceptable standards of public morality, decency and broadcasting ethics,” he wrote.

The lawyer further argued that the NBC has, in the past, sanctioned, restricted or prohibited music, films and other broadcast content considered explicit or inconsistent with public broadcasting standards.

He questioned why similar scrutiny appeared absent in the case of one of Nigeria’s most watched television programmes.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, Idam gave the commission seven days to provide the requested information, insisting that the public has a right to know what actions were taken after the regulator allegedly acknowledged breaches of its own code.

The renewed challenge comes amid preparations for another season of Big Brother Naija, a programme that has long generated debate between supporters who view it as entertainment and critics who argue that some of its content undermines public decency and cultural values.

As anticipation builds for the next edition, attention may now shift from the activities inside the famous Big Brother house to questions surrounding the regulator responsible for policing what appears on Nigerian television screens.

Whether the NBC responds to the request—and what details it provides—could determine whether the controversy surrounding the programme’s content returns to the national spotlight.

Terror In The Capital: Security guard killed as bandits abduct pastor, 11-year-old boy, two others in Abuja

Bandits attacked Paze community around the Byazhin area of Kubwa in Bwari Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), killing a vigilante and abducting four residents, including a pastor and a minor.

The attackers, said to be about eight in number, invaded the area in the early hours of Thursday, June 4, 2026, shot d3ad a security guard, Shuaibu Yerima, who was engaged to protect the neighbourhood popularly known as “Back of Catholic Church.”

The gunmen also abducted Pastor Francis Oriade of the All Christian Fellowship Mission (ACFM), Maitama, Abuja; Jewel Obeh; Friday Isaac; and an 11-year-old boy, Delight Okeke.

Speaking of the incident, Emmanuel Isaac, younger brother of one of the abducted victims, said he first noticed the attackers’ arrival shortly after midnight following a gunshot believed to have k!lled the security guard.

“We then saw them coming into our premises, with about four of them bearing guns. Another member of the gang that seemed to be leading them was wearing a mask on his face. We attempted to escape through a back door, only to be rounded up and asked to move back inside the house,” he explained

“They tied my hands and that of my elder brother before directing me to go with them. But my brother pleaded with them to rather go with him, which they agreed to.

“About 10 minutes after they left, policemen arrived in the neighbourhood with an armoured van and a Sienna car.

“We pleaded with the police to trail the kidnappers, pointing toward the direction they went but they said no, that they preferred to go through a different direction,” said Isaac, who had recently moved into a newly built house that was yet to be fully furnished.

Also speaking, Elizabeth Oriade, younger sister of the abducted pastor, said the gunmen gained access into their home through a window after failing to force open the door.

“We noticed their presence following some gun shooting around 12am, and they invaded our homes about 20 minutes later.

“They traced us to the toilet, dragged the pastor from his room, while slapping him in the process as, according to them, he made them suffer much for not opening his room’s door immediately.

“They tore one of our wrappers and tied our hands with it, seized our mobile phones, and also took some cash before taking him away,” she narrated.

Mrs Joy Alex, whose husband, Jewel Obeh, was among those abducted, said she had spent about an hour searching for the house key on the night of the attack.

“I stayed till about 11pm at the family shop located by the roadside in our neighbourhood, on that fateful night, searching for the house key for more than an hour. I then advised my husband to go and lodge in a hotel before my daughter eventually found the key.

“Just about an hour after returning back home, we noticed the arrival of the gunmen. They pulled out a window attached to the house using tools like a digger.

“Two of them jumped in and directed us to open our door. Initially they wanted to take away my daughter, before they decided to leave with my husband alone,” she lamented.

The mother of the abducted 11-year-old boy, Erenta Okeke, said the gunmen broke into her home through a window and demanded money while pointing a gun at her head.

“My husband was not around at the time, so they decided to abduct my little son after pleading with them to spare his younger sister, who was shivering throughout the period of the operation,” she recounted.

Residents said the slain vigilante was initially shot in the leg but bled to d3ath due to delay in getting medical assistance.

He was buried yesterday after funeral prayers held at the palace of the chief of Ijayapi, also located within the Byazhin community.

A senior police officer at the Byazhin Divisional Headquarters, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the incident, adding that its men are on the trail of the kidnappers.

Linda Ikeji

Bandits on TikTok, Schoolchildren in Captivity: Why Nigerians are questioning security priorities

By Ladidi Sabo

ABUJA — As dozens of schoolchildren remain in captivity following coordinated attacks in Oyo and Borno states, another question is rapidly gaining traction across Nigeria: How can armed groups openly broadcast videos on social media while remaining beyond the reach of security forces?

The question has resurfaced following a wave of viral TikTok videos showing suspected bandits displaying weapons, military-style uniforms and alleged ransom proceeds, even as authorities struggle to secure the release of abducted pupils and teachers.

For many Nigerians, the issue is no longer simply one of technology or terrain. It is becoming a test of public confidence in the state’s ability—and willingness—to confront the country’s most dangerous criminal networks with the same urgency seen in other high-profile investigations.

Security officials and analysts argue that the comparison is often misleading. Tracking an individual operating openly in a city with registered phone numbers, fixed addresses and traceable digital footprints is fundamentally different from locating heavily armed groups moving through vast forest corridors stretching across multiple states and international borders.

Yet public scepticism persists.

The frustration stems partly from the visibility of the threat. Bandits and terrorists have increasingly used social media platforms to project power, boast of operations and, in some cases, taunt security agencies. Each new video fuels a perception that criminals are operating with a degree of impunity that contrasts sharply with the speed at which critics, activists and social media personalities are sometimes identified and questioned by authorities.

That perception has only deepened as the government grapples with one of its most delicate hostage crises in recent years.

Multiple Presidency and security sources told The PUNCH that abductors holding pupils and teachers seized in coordinated attacks on schools in Oyo and Borno states are demanding the release of senior Ansaru terrorist commanders currently in government custody.

The demand has created a strategic dilemma for the Federal Government: whether to maintain its refusal to negotiate with terrorist groups or consider concessions that could secure the release of dozens of children but potentially return dangerous operatives to the battlefield.

Inside the INEC Data Leak: How restricted voter records reached political hands

By Johnson Agu

How did sensitive voter information leave a restricted government system, and what does that say about the protection of citizens’ data?

ABUJA — A police investigation into the publication of Nollywood actor Emeka Ike’s voter registration records has exposed troubling questions about the security of Nigeria’s electoral databases.

The real story is not that Emeka Ike’s voter information appeared online. It is the apparent ease with which sensitive records from a restricted electoral database allegedly travelled beyond the walls of the institution charged with protecting them.

The incident has triggered investigations by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Nigeria Police Force, and the Department of State Services (DSS), with authorities seeking to determine how confidential voter records were accessed, shared and ultimately published online.

Lere Olayinka, spokesperson to the FCT Minister, confirmed that he was questioned by police investigators on Tuesday.

“I was invited on Tuesday. I honoured their invitation,” he said.

But beyond the police investigation lies a broader concern that extends far beyond one politician, one actor or one disputed election.

For many observers, the episode has exposed a potentially dangerous vulnerability within Nigeria’s electoral infrastructure: the possibility that individuals entrusted with access to sensitive voter information may be able to retrieve and disseminate such data without sufficient safeguards.

The controversy erupted after Olayinka published screenshots on X showing details relating to Emeka Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory. The images contained information ordinarily unavailable to the public, including Ike’s voter registration application details, profile photograph, registration centre, voter identification number and application status.

The disclosure immediately prompted public outrage and demands for answers regarding how information housed within INEC’s restricted administrative systems became publicly available.

INEC has since rejected suggestions that its Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) database was externally hacked.

Instead, the electoral commission disclosed that preliminary findings indicate the information was accessed through valid credentials assigned to authorised personnel involved in the ongoing voter registration exercise.

The explanation, while ruling out a cyber intrusion, has amplified concerns about insider misuse.

If confirmed, the incident would suggest that the greater threat to sensitive voter information may not come from external hackers but from individuals operating within systems designed to protect the personal data of millions of Nigerians.

INEC said an audit trail enabled investigators to identify the user account through which the information was retrieved and that relevant personnel had already been questioned.

The commission added that it is examining all technical, operational and administrative circumstances surrounding the incident, including whether internal access-control protocols were breached.

Yet the emerging details have raised difficult questions.

How did records from a restricted electoral platform allegedly move from an authorised account to a private individual with no official role in voter registration?

What controls exist to prevent authorised users from copying, sharing or exporting confidential information?

And if the records of a high-profile public figure can be circulated so easily, what assurances exist for millions of ordinary Nigerians whose personal information resides within the same system?

According to sources familiar with the investigation, police detectives are examining allegations of cyber infractions, unauthorised database misuse and the disclosure of classified documents.

Investigators are also probing reports that an electoral official may have initiated contact with Olayinka and transmitted the records through private communication channels.

A yet-to-be-identified electoral officer linked to the matter has reportedly been detained for questioning.

TheCable reported that investigators are examining whether the information was shared through Facebook Messenger and later transmitted via WhatsApp before being published online.

If established, such a chain of events would underscore concerns about the adequacy of existing controls governing access to sensitive electoral information.

The fallout has extended beyond institutional concerns.

Emeka Ike, who recently contested for a House of Representatives ticket in the Federal Capital Territory, described the publication of his voter information as a deeply disturbing invasion of privacy.

“For the first time, I’m feeling like, is anybody safe in this country anymore?” he said during an appearance on News Central Television.

The actor said the incident left him feeling vulnerable and exposed, arguing that it reflects a broader culture of impunity and abuse of authority.

“It is basically telling Nigerians that we’re in charge, we know you all, we’ll do what we want and we can get away with it,” he said.

Ike confirmed that he has commenced legal action and that his lawyers have formally written to INEC, the DSS, the police and other parties connected to the matter.

The case arrives at a time when concerns about data protection, digital privacy and public confidence in institutions are becoming increasingly significant in Nigeria.

For INEC, the stakes extend beyond the outcome of any criminal investigation.

The commission now faces the challenge of reassuring Nigerians that information entrusted to one of the country’s most important democratic institutions cannot be casually accessed, shared or weaponised for political purposes.

Again, the most troubling question raised by this controversy is not whether Emeka Ike’s data was leaked.

It is whether the safeguards protecting the personal information of millions of Nigerian voters are strong enough to prevent it from happening again.

NBA blasts courts, EFCC, police over ‘impossible’ bail conditions, says bail has become jail

ABUJA — The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has issued a strong warning over what it describes as a growing abuse of the bail system by courts and law enforcement agencies, saying excessive and unrealistic bail conditions are effectively keeping thousands of accused persons behind bars despite being granted bail.

In a statement released on Thursday, NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, accused courts and security agencies—including the Nigeria Police Force, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and others—of increasingly imposing conditions that are virtually impossible for many Nigerians to satisfy.

According to the NBA, demands for sureties who must be senior civil servants on Grade Levels 16 or 17, alongside requirements for landed properties worth hundreds of millions of naira, have transformed bail from a constitutional safeguard into what it called “a tool of pre-trial detention.”

“The consequence is that many persons who are constitutionally presumed innocent and have ostensibly been granted bail remain incarcerated because the conditions attached to their release are beyond their reach,” Osigwe said.

The association warned that the trend threatens fundamental constitutional protections, including the right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.

The NBA stressed that bail was never intended to serve as punishment before conviction but rather as a mechanism to ensure that accused persons appear in court while retaining their freedom pending trial.

“The law is settled that bail conditions must be reasonable, practical and capable of being fulfilled by the accused person,” the statement noted.

Osigwe cited the Supreme Court decision in Suleman & Anor v. Commissioner of Police, Plateau State (2008), where the apex court held that the objective of bail is to grant pre-trial freedom to an accused person whose attendance in court can be secured through appropriate conditions.

The NBA expressed particular concern over what it described as the routine imposition of conditions disconnected from Nigeria’s economic realities.

“Conditions requiring sureties who are serving civil servants on specific salary grades, ownership of landed properties of extraordinary value, or other burdensome requirements effectively convert the grant of bail into a denial of bail,” the association said.

The legal body also referenced the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dasuki v. Director-General, State Security Service & Ors (2019), where the appellate court criticised the practice of requiring senior public servants as mandatory sureties.

According to the NBA, the court held that such requirements are largely unknown in modern legal systems and may conflict with public service regulations and anti-corruption objectives.

The association further pointed out that Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 expressly provides that bail conditions must not be excessive, even where judges exercise discretion.

“Judicial discretion, though wide, must always be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees,” Osigwe stated.

The NBA argued that the continued restriction of acceptable sureties to senior civil servants lacks any legal or empirical justification.

“There is no evidence that civil servants are inherently more reliable as sureties than other law-abiding citizens,” the association said, adding that such conditions unfairly limit who can stand as a guarantor and create unnecessary barriers to accessing bail.

The association called on courts nationwide to align their decisions with constitutional provisions, the ACJA, and established judicial precedents by ensuring that bail conditions remain fair, proportionate and attainable.

It also urged judicial officers to remember that every accused person remains innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.

“As guardians of the rule of law, we must collectively ensure that the constitutional right to bail remains meaningful and effective,” Osigwe said.

“Bail should not become a privilege reserved only for those with extraordinary means or connections. It must remain what the law intended it to be—a mechanism for securing attendance at trial while preserving the liberty and dignity of persons who have not been convicted of any offence.”

The intervention comes amid growing concerns about prison congestion and prolonged pre-trial detention across Nigeria’s criminal justice system, with legal practitioners warning that unattainable bail conditions are increasingly becoming a silent route to incarceration without conviction.

No Case Submission and Resting the Defence on the Prosecution’s Case in Nigerian Criminal Trials: Distinctions, procedural implications, and strategic considerations for the defence

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN

Criminal trials in Nigeria are governed by procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness, protect the rights of the accused, and prevent wrongful convictions.[1] Central to these safeguards is the fundamental principle that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests entirely on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.[2] This principle, firmly rooted in criminal jurisprudence, ensures that an accused person is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise with credible, legally admissible evidence.[3]

The Supreme Court in Altine v State[4] held that section 36(5) of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence to which an accused is entitled until proven guilty.[5]

At the close of the prosecution’s case, the law affords the accused certain procedural options that may significantly influence the course and outcome of the trial.[6] Two principal options available to the defence at this stage are a submission of no case to answer and the decision to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case.[7] Although these options are often mentioned together in criminal proceedings, they are conceptually distinct and carry different legal consequences.

A submission of no case to answer is a formal application by the defence contending that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to require the accused to enter a defence.[8] Where such a submission succeeds, the court must discharge the accused without calling upon them to open a defence. The doctrine serves as an important procedural safeguard, preventing an accused from being compelled to defend a charge unsupported by credible evidence.[9]

By contrast, resting the defence on the prosecution’s case arises where the accused elects not to call evidence after the prosecution has closed its case.[10] Rather than challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence through a formal submission, the defence relies entirely on the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or gaps in that case to argue that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.[11] In such circumstances, the court evaluates the totality of the evidence before it to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Although both options arise at the same stage of the trial, they differ significantly in their legal foundations, procedural implications, and strategic consequences. A successful submission of no case to answer terminates the trial at that stage, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case leaves the court to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence on its merits without further evidential input from the defence.[12]

In practice, the decision whether to raise a submission of no case to answer or to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case requires careful strategic consideration by defence counsel. Factors such as the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, the availability of defence witnesses, the risk of exposing the accused to cross-examination, and the overall trial strategy may influence this choice.

This article examines two key procedural options available to an accused at the close of the prosecution’s case in a criminal trial. It analyses the legal principles governing a submission of no case to answer, the circumstances in which it may be successfully raised, and the judicial tests applied by courts in determining such applications. It further contrasts this with situations in which the accused elects to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case, thereby relying solely on perceived weaknesses or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. Particular attention is given to the procedural distinctions, evidential implications, and strategic considerations that inform the defence’s choice between these approaches. Intended for criminal law practitioners, law students, and judicial officers, the article provides practical guidance on the effective use of these procedural mechanisms in Nigerian criminal trials.

Meaning and Legal Basis of Submission of no Case to Answer

A submission of no case to answer means that there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution upon which the court can compel the defendant to enter a defence.[13] The Apex Court in the case of C.O.P v AMUTA[14]held that it is settled law that a submission of no case to answer by an accused means that there is no evidence upon which, even if believed, the court could convict.[15]

In other words, such a submission will succeed where there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence, or where the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under cross-examination, or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable court or Tribunal could safely convict on it. At the stage at which a submission of no case to answer is made, the trial Court is not required to express any opinion on the evidence before it, and the credibility of witnesses is not in issue. The court is only required to determine whether there is any legally admissible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence charged. Where the submission is based on discredited evidence, the discredit must be apparent on the face of the record; otherwise, the submission will fail.[16]

Judicial Tests for Upholding a Submission of no Case to Answer

Over time, Nigerian courts have developed clear principles guiding the determination of a submission of no case to answer. The leading authority is the Supreme Court decision in Daboh v The State,[17]where the court articulated the applicable tests.[18] The courts generally consider the following:

(a) Absence of evidence linking the accused to the offence: A submission of no case to answer will succeed where there is no evidence linking the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the prosecution fails to establish even the basic evidentiary foundation required to continue the trial.

(b) Evidence so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could act upon it: Even where some evidence exists, a submission of no case to answer may still succeed if the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under cross-examination, or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable tribunal could safely rely on it.

(c) Failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offence: A submission of no case to answer will also succeed where the prosecution fails to establish the essential elements of the offence charged. Since criminal liability depends on proof of these ingredients, the absence of evidence on any material element renders the charge unsustainable.

It is important to note that at this stage, the court does not evaluate the evidence to the same depth required at the final judgment stage. Rather, it determines whether there is some credible evidence requiring the accused to offer an explanation. Where such evidence exists, however slight, the court will ordinarily overrule the submission and call upon the accused to enter a defence.

Resting the Defence on the Prosecution’s Case

Where a submission of no case to answer is overruled, the defendant may elect not to give or call evidence, thereby resting the defence on the prosecution’s case. In such circumstances, the defendant, through counsel (where represented), informs the court after the ruling and proceeds to address it. This address constitutes the final address and is expected to be broader in scope than a submission of no case to answer. Counsel will address all issues arising in the case, including insufficiency of evidence, credibility of witnesses, the weight to be attached to their testimony, and relevant points of law.[19]

Resting the defence on the prosecution’s case is therefore a strategic decision. By adopting this approach, the accused avoids giving evidence and is not exposed to cross-examination by the prosecution.[20] However, the court proceeds to evaluate the evidence before it and determine whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.[21]

It is important to note that, even where the defence rests on the prosecution’s case, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. The accused is under no obligation to prove innocence.

Distinctions Between the two Procedures

Although both procedural options arise at the close of the prosecution’s case, they differ in several important respects.[22]

First, a submission of no case to answer is a formal legal application, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case is a tactical decision by the defence not to call evidence.

Second, the consequence of a successful no case to answer is the immediate discharge of the accused without the need to enter a defence. By contrast, where the defence rests on the prosecution’s case, the trial proceeds to final addresses and ultimately to judgment.[23]

Third, a submission of no case to answer invites the court to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case requires the court to evaluate the evidence in its entirety in determining whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.[24]

Finally, the procedural risks differ. Where a submission of no case to answer fails, the accused may still elect to open a defence. However, where the defence rests entirely on the prosecution’s case, the accused forfeits the opportunity to present evidence in support of the defence.[25]

Conclusion

The procedural options of submitting a no-case-to-answer and resting the defence on the prosecution’s case constitute important safeguards within Nigerian criminal procedure. Both mechanisms reinforce the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While a submission of no case to answer provides a formal avenue for challenging the legal sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence at an early stage, resting the defence on the prosecution’s case allows the defence to rely on the inherent weaknesses in the evidence without presenting additional testimony.

A clear understanding of the distinctions between these procedural mechanisms is essential for effective criminal litigation. Defence counsel must carefully assess the strength of the prosecution’s case and adopt the strategy that best protects the interests of the accused while preserving the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Reference:

  1. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) pp. 900 – 927 ↑
  2. Ibraheem, Ojo Tajudeen, ‘No Case Submission Under Nigerian Law’ (2013) V0l.2 No.1, International Journal of Innovative Research & Development. ↑
  3. Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended); Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 ↑
  4. (2024) LPELR-81913(SC) ↑
  5. Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC (Pp 31 – 31 Paras D – D) ↑
  6. UZOAGBA & ANOR v. COP (2012) LPELR-15525(SC) ↑
  7. OKEJERE v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80675(SC) ↑
  8. Suberu v State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 520) 1263 at 1274 ↑
  9. Fagoriola v FRN (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 724) 74; Agbo v State (2010) LPELR – 4989 (CA) ↑
  10. ADAMU v. STATE (2014) LPELR-22696(SC) ↑
  11. Nwede v. The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 444; Ali & Anor v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 1; Magaji v. The Nigerian Army (2008) 5 SCM 126 ↑
  12. UTTEH v. STATE (1992) LPELR-6239(SC) ↑
  13. I.G.P v Sonoma (2021) ALL FWLR (Pt. 1102) 41 ↑
  14. (2017) LPELR-41386(SC) ↑
  15. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC (Pp 27 – 28 Paras F – F) ↑
  16. Ekwunugo v. F.R.N. (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.111) 630. ↑
  17. (1977) All NLR 146 per Udo Udoma, JSC; also found in (1977) LPELR – 904 (SC) 1 @ 15-16 A ↑
  18. See also, Ekwunugo v. F.R.N (Supra); Ibeziako v. C.O.P. (1963) 1 SCNLR 99; Owonikoko v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.62) 381; Agbo v. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1365) 377; C.O.P v. AMUTA (2017) LPELR-41386(SC) ↑
  19. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) p. 911 ↑
  20. See Akpan v State (Supra); Queen v Sharripal Sinigh (1962) 2 WLR 238; Nwede v State [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 444 at 456. ↑
  21. Nwede v State (Supra) ↑
  22. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) pp. 913 – 914 ↑
  23. C.O.P v. AMUTA (Supra) ↑
  24. Akpan v State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 225 ↑
  25. Shorumo v State (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 568) 864 at 892 ↑

Legal Analysis: Owo Church massacre verdict and the evolution of Nigeria’s terrorism jurisprudence

By Law & Society Magazine Board of Editors

The judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, sentencing four men to death by hanging for their roles in the June 5, 2022 massacre at St. Francis Catholic Church, Owo, represents far more than the conviction of individual offenders. It is one of the most consequential terrorism prosecutions in Nigeria’s recent legal history and offers important insights into the evolving contours of anti-terrorism litigation, evidentiary standards, and criminal accountability.

Justice Emeka Nwite’s decision is significant for at least three reasons: the court’s application of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, the successful deployment of digital forensic evidence in securing convictions, and the court’s insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt despite the overwhelming public outrage surrounding the attack.

A Rare Judicial Victory Against Terrorism

For years, Nigeria’s fight against terrorism has largely been fought on the battlefield rather than in the courtroom. While security agencies have frequently announced arrests of suspected terrorists, relatively few cases have culminated in full-scale trials resulting in convictions for major terrorist atrocities.

The Owo Church massacre prosecution therefore marks one of the rare instances where investigators, prosecutors, and the judiciary completed the entire criminal justice cycle—from arrest and investigation to conviction and sentencing.

The verdict demonstrates that terrorism cases can be successfully prosecuted through lawful judicial processes rather than relying exclusively on military operations or administrative detention. It reinforces the principle that even the most heinous acts of terrorism must ultimately be subjected to judicial scrutiny and constitutional safeguards.

The Growing Importance of Digital and Forensic Evidence

Perhaps the most legally significant aspect of the judgment is the apparent reliance on electronic communications, digital forensic reports, and technological evidence linking the defendants to the terrorist network.

Historically, terrorism prosecutions in Nigeria have depended heavily on confessional statements, many of which have subsequently become subjects of controversy regarding voluntariness and admissibility.

In this case, however, the prosecution reportedly strengthened its case through forensic analysis of electronic devices and communications allegedly exchanged before and after the attack.

This reflects a gradual but important shift in Nigerian criminal prosecutions toward evidence-driven investigations. Courts are increasingly willing to evaluate digital footprints, electronic communications, and forensic intelligence as corroborative evidence capable of establishing criminal participation in complex conspiracies.

The implication is profound: terrorists may increasingly find it difficult to evade accountability in an age where digital communications often leave trails capable of reconstruction by investigators.

Proof Beyond Public Emotion

One of the most remarkable features of the judgment is not the conviction of four defendants but the acquittal of the fifth.

The Owo massacre generated enormous public outrage. More than forty worshippers lost their lives, hundreds were traumatized, and the attack shocked the conscience of the nation. In such circumstances, courts often face immense pressure to secure convictions.

Yet, Justice Nwite’s decision to discharge and acquit one defendant underscores a fundamental principle of criminal justice: suspicion, public anger, or association cannot substitute for proof.

The court’s finding that the prosecution failed to sufficiently connect the fifth defendant to the attack demonstrates fidelity to the constitutional standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In many respects, the acquittal may strengthen the legitimacy of the convictions themselves. It suggests that the court carefully separated evidence from emotion and assessed each defendant on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility.

That distinction is critical in terrorism prosecutions, where guilt by association often becomes a temptation.

The Death Penalty Question

The sentence of death by hanging immediately revives the longstanding debate surrounding capital punishment in Nigeria.

Legally, the sentence falls squarely within the framework of Nigerian anti-terrorism legislation, which permits capital punishment for terrorist acts resulting in death.

However, practical realities complicate the picture.

Executions in Nigeria have become increasingly rare over the years. In many instances, death sentences remain unenforced for prolonged periods due to administrative, political, and human rights considerations.

Consequently, while the court has imposed the maximum punishment permitted by law, the ultimate implementation of the sentence remains uncertain and may be affected by future appellate proceedings and executive considerations.

This raises an enduring question: should terrorism-related offences continue attracting the death penalty, or should Nigeria move toward alternative forms of permanent incapacitation such as life imprisonment without parole?

The debate is likely to intensify as the case proceeds through the appellate courts.

The Appeals Ahead

The defence’s immediate indication that it will challenge the judgment means the legal battle is far from over.

The Court of Appeal will likely be invited to scrutinize several critical issues, including:

  • The admissibility and reliability of confessional statements;
  • The evidentiary value of digital forensic materials;
  • Whether the prosecution sufficiently established participation in the alleged terrorist conspiracy;
  • Compliance with constitutional fair hearing guarantees; and
  • Whether the evidence presented satisfied the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Given the gravity of the offences and the death sentences imposed, appellate courts are expected to subject the record to particularly rigorous examination.

That scrutiny is not a weakness of the system but one of its greatest strengths. In capital cases, the law demands certainty before life can be taken by the state.

Justice Delivered—But Not Yet Complete

While the verdict represents a significant milestone, it does not necessarily signify the end of the search for accountability.

The court’s findings suggest that the convicted men were members of a broader terrorist network. If that is the case, then the prosecution of four individuals cannot by itself dismantle the structures, financiers, recruiters, and operational commanders who may have facilitated the attack.

The larger challenge for security agencies remains identifying and prosecuting all those involved in the conspiracy.

For the families who lost loved ones on that Pentecost Sunday, the judgment provides an important measure of judicial recognition and accountability. Yet true justice may ultimately require not only punishing those convicted but also ensuring that the wider network responsible for one of Nigeria’s deadliest attacks on a place of worship is fully exposed and dismantled.

Conclusion

The Owo Church massacre judgment stands as a landmark moment in Nigeria’s anti-terrorism jurisprudence. It demonstrates the growing sophistication of terrorism prosecutions, reinforces the constitutional requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and highlights the judiciary’s central role in combating violent extremism through lawful means.

Whether the convictions survive appellate review remains to be seen. But for now, the judgment sends a powerful message: terrorism may seek to undermine the rule of law, yet it is ultimately through the rule of law that democratic societies assert their strongest response.

1...8910...1,421Page 9 of 1,421

TIPS

Load more