Twelve years following his conviction for the devastating 2011 Christmas Day bombing of St. Theresa Catholic Church in Madalla, near Nigeria’s capital Abuja, suspected Boko Haram operative Kabiru Umar, famously known as Kabiru Sokoto, has launched an appeal challenging the life imprisonment sentence handed down to him. The move reignites public interest in a case that once gripped the nation, highlighting the protracted nature of justice in high-profile terrorism trials.
Sokoto’s legal representatives have attributed the significant delay in filing this crucial appeal to a confluence of “circumstances beyond his control.” These include the unfortunate deaths of two of his former lawyers, repeated transfers between various custodial facilities which he claims isolated him, and severe financial constraints faced by his family, all of which reportedly hindered his ability to pursue timely legal recourse.
The tragic December 25, 2011 bombing, an act of terror claimed by the dreaded Boko Haram sect, resulted in the loss of approximately 35 innocent worshippers and left scores of others severely injured, casting a pall over what should have been a day of festive celebration. The incident sent shockwaves across Nigeria and internationally, underscoring the growing threat of insurgency.
Details from the appeal documents, exclusively obtained by this newspaper, reveal that Sokoto, through his legal counsel, Don Akaegbu & Company, lodged his application on May 13 before the Abuja Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal. He is seeking an extension of time to secure leave to appeal his conviction, among other critical prayers.
Nigerians will recall the dramatic events surrounding Sokoto’s initial apprehension and subsequent escape. He was first arrested on January 14, 2012, at the Borno State Governor’s Lodge in Asokoro, Abuja, reportedly alongside a serving military officer. Police investigators then took him to Abaji, also in Abuja, to search a property believed to be his. It was during this period that Sokoto dramatically escaped police custody, leading to a major scandal.
The escape triggered immediate repercussions within the security apparatus, notably the suspension and subsequent house arrest of Zakari Biu, who was then the head of the Zone 7 Police Command in Abuja overseeing Boko Haram investigations at the Criminal Investigation Department. Biu, along with other junior police officers involved, was detained at an undisclosed location. The gravity of the situation prompted then-President Goodluck Jonathan to issue a 24-hour ultimatum to the then-Inspector General of Police (IGP) Hafiz Ringim to re-apprehend the Boko Haram suspect. Ringim’s failure to meet this directive ultimately led to his retirement.
The State Security Services (SSS) later announced Sokoto’s re-arrest in February 2012, following what they described as a fierce gunfight between their operatives and members of his gang in Taraba State, a testament to the high-stakes pursuit.
Following his re-arrest, Kabiru Sokoto faced trial and was ultimately sentenced by the Federal High Court in Abuja on December 20, 2013. The suspected terror kingpin received a life imprisonment sentence for one terrorism charge under Section 15(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004, and an additional 10 years for a separate charge under Section 7(1) of the Terrorism Act, 2011.
In his extensive appeal processes, Kabiru Sokoto presented four key prayers to the Court of Appeal: an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal, the granting of leave to challenge the judgment itself, an extension of time to file a formal notice of appeal, and an order deeming the notice of appeal already filed as properly submitted and served.
His legal team has meticulously outlined 12 grounds for the appeal, each challenging fundamental aspects of his trial and conviction:
1. **Wrongful Statutory Conviction:** The first ground argues that Sokoto suffered a “wrongful conviction under an inapplicable statute,” contending he was convicted of a terrorism offense under the EFCC Act of 2004 rather than the more appropriate Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2011. This argument highlights a crucial legal distinction regarding the legislative framework applied.
2. **Failure to Prove Essential Ingredients:** The defence posits that the prosecution “demonstrably failed to prove the essential ingredients” of the charges due to a perceived lack of “credible and direct evidence.”
3. **Dubious Confessional Statement:** The appeal asserts that the trial court erroneously relied upon a confessional statement whose voluntariness was “dubious,” as it was reportedly drafted by the police in a “question-and-answer format” instead of a “free narration.”
4. **Unadmitted Witness Statement:** Ground four alleges that the judge violated fundamental rules by relying on a witness statement that was “never tendered as an exhibit or formally admitted in evidence.”
5. **Prosecution’s Evidential Lapse:** The appellant argues that the prosecution’s failure to call a “vital witness” and produce a “mandatory video recording” should have triggered a “conclusive presumption against the prosecution.”
6. **Erroneous Dismissal of No-Case Submission:** The appeal contends that the court engaged in a “wrongful dismissal of no-case submission” because the prosecution’s evidence, deemed “largely hearsay,” failed to establish a “prima facie case.”
7. **Emotive Considerations in Judgment:** Kabiru Sokoto’s lawyers argue that the judge imported “emotive and prejudicial considerations” by subjectively labeling the appellant a “pathological liar with no respect for the truth.”
8. **Reversed Burden of Proof:** The trial court is accused of unlawfully “reversing the constitutional and statutory burden of proof” by expecting the appellant to explain the prosecution’s missing evidence.
9. **Unsupported Failure-to-Disclose Charge:** The appeal maintains that the charge of failure to disclose information was unsupported, as there was no proof the appellant possessed “actionable intelligence before the bombing.”
10. **Reliance on Untested Hearsay:** The court is also accused of improperly finding material facts on “unsworn, untested, hearsay evidence” from an arrested suspect who never testified in court.
11. **Unlawful Sentence Basis:** The appellant argues that the life imprisonment mandate constitutes an “unlawful sentence arising from a wrongful statutory basis” because it relied on financial crimes legislation rather than specific terrorism laws. This echoes the first ground regarding the applicable statute.
12. **Judgment Against Weight of Evidence:** Finally, the judgment is described as being “against the weight of evidence” because the prosecution allegedly provided “no physical exhibit” and “no eyewitness,” which the appeal asserts fell far short of the standard required for a life conviction in a case of such magnitude.
Since his conviction, details regarding where Sokoto has been serving his life sentence have remained largely undisclosed to the public. However, an affidavit deposed to by his nephew, Lawal Suleiman, confirmed that he was eventually traced to the Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison in Lagos in March of this year, providing some clarity on his current incarceration. This appeal now sets the stage for another significant legal battle in Nigeria’s ongoing efforts to tackle terrorism and ensure justice.
Originally sourced from Premium Times. This article has been rewritten for our readers.
About the Author
