admin
The supreme court has dismissed a suit seeking a retrial of Hamza Al-Mustapha, former chief security officer to Sani Abacha, the late military head of state, over the murder of Kudirat Abiola.
Kudirat, wife of Moshood Abiola, was killed on June 4 1996, in Lagos.
Al-Mustapha and Lateef Shofolahan, an aide of the Kudirat, were accused of being involved in her death.
They were subsequently charged to court by the Lagos state government and arraigned on a two-count charge that bordered on conspiracy to commit murder, and the murder of Kudirat.
On January 30, 2012, Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan were sentenced to death by Mojisola Dada, judge of the federal high court in Lagos, for murder.
But Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan appealed against the judgment at the Lagos division of the appeal court — where they were acquitted of the charge on July 12, 2013.
On January 12, 2017, a five-member panel of justices led by Walter Onnoghen, the former chief justice of Nigeria, granted the Lagos state government an extended time to file an appeal despite the expiration of the time to do so.
The panel ordered the Lagos state government to file notice of appeal within the next 30 days.
However, at the court session on Thursday, Paul Daudu, counsel to Al- Mustapha, told the court that Lagos has not taken any step to implement the order granted it in 2017.
He said not even a notice of appeal was filed by Lagos state as the appellant to demonstrate its seriousness to prosecute the matter, even after nine years
He, therefore, prayed the court to hold that the appellant had abandoned the case and should be dismissed in its entirety.
Following an enquiry by a five-member panel of the apex court led by Uwani Aba-Aji, it was found that a hearing notice was duly served on Lagos state which was not represented by any lawyer.
In a brief ruling, the panel agreed that the state had lost interest in the matter.
The panel held that nine years was long enough for the appellant to have filed its notice of appeal and the appeal on the matter.
They noted that there was no correspondence from the state to explain why it was not represented in court.
Consequently, the case marked: SC/CR/45/2014, was dismissed.
