FROM SLAY QUEEN TO “THE DEFENDANT”

The name Chidinma Ojukwu hit the internet last year, as the story of the 21 year old beauty who allegedly had a hand in the suspicious and gruesome murder of Mr. Michael Ataga, her alleged lover.

There is really no need to go into the details of the story that paraded the media for weeks. What is of importance now is that, the suspect, as she then was, was arrested by the Nigeria Police force on the 23^rd day of June, 2022, and charged to court on the 12^th October, 2021 alongside two others, including her sister who she had gifted the deceased phone (we will talk about this later, when your only crime is receiving a stolen property, especially when death or armed robbery is involved).

After being charged to court, and the prosecution in trying to prove its case against the “defendant” as she is now called, and secure a murder conviction, called witnesses, which included the Investigating Police Officer of the case. On one of the days in court, a video recording was played in court where the lifeless body of the deceased was is in his own pool of blood, and Chidinma confessing to fact that she killed the deceased on her own. On another day in court, another video which recorded an interrogated Chidinma denying that she knew anything about the death of the deceased was likewise played. The prosecution also tried to tender the “Confessional statement” of Chidinma, and this was objected to by one of the defence counsel (Chidinma’s lawyer). The court was forced to order a Trial within Trial.

I know. You obviously want to understand what a Trial within Trial means, and why it is necessary. Now when a suspect is arrested, one of the first things that the police officers try to obtain from the suspect is a “confessional statement”. A confessional statement is a statement written by the suspect admitting that he/she committed the said offence. It can go as far as stating how the offence was committed and who was a part of the crime, and why it was done in the first place. Every information needed. This sounds easy right? But trust me, it is not.

You see, some hardened criminals would rather die than give any confessional statement. This makes the work of the police officers a bit difficult. When there is an available confessional statement, it is easier to go on with the investigation. No confessional statement, then the officers have to do more work. So, what some unskilled officers do is to beat the confessional statement out of the suspect. If they do not beat, they would intimidate, or even threaten the suspect. The problem with this method is that the suspect has the opportunity to tell the Court that he was forced, manipulated or threatened to make that statement. This opportunity would lead the court to call for what is known as “Trial within Trial”. The police would then have to prove to the Court that it was the suspect who made the statement freely and voluntarily without any fear whatsoever. So, basically, a trial-within-trial is a trial inside a main trial, wherein the sole purpose is to determine whether the confessional statement the prosecution wants the court to accept as evidence was obtained by force or intimidation or inducement from the accused.

So, for the Chidinma saga, there is a confessional statement, which was to be tendered by the police officer, and Chidinma tells the court that she was coaxed in to signing that statement. In fact, according to her, that was not the statement she made. The first statement she wrote, wherein she denied everything was torn into pieces by the Police officers handling her case. She informed the Court how the officers slapped her over and over again till she signed the statement which they wrote for her, and that the statement was written in the absence of her lawyer. She also informed the court that the officers told her that if she didn’t sign the statement, her younger sister, father and other relatives would be charged with murder.

The court does not deal lightly with confessional statements that are coaxed from suspects. Most often than not, once the Court is convinced that the statement was forced out of the defendant, it would reject the statement as an evidence and the prosecution would have to find other ways to prove its case.

You know that video where Chidinma was asked if she knew about the death and she said that she didn’t know anything about the death and did not kill him? According to Chidinma, that video was recorded in the DCP’s office, before she was taken to the interrogation room where she was allegedly forced to sign this statement. The surprising thing to me is, this same video was played in court. So, we have a video wherein she is denying knowledge of the deceased’s death, and a statement stating that she committed the act, the same statement that she is saying she was forced to sign.

The officer who had come to court had informed the court that she (the officer) had to write down Chidinma’s statement because Chidinma’s writing was not eligible. I don’t know how the Court would go about this, but it means that when Chidinma said she didn’t write this statement, there was a little truth to it. It would also mean she signed what was given to her, in the absence of a lawyer, and without a video recording to that effect.

I am going to tell you why video recording of a confessional statement is important, especially in Lagos. According to the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015 which governs criminal trials in Lagos of which confessional statements are part of, there must be a video recording in the interrogation room, where the accused is writing or making confessional statement to prove that he or she was not forced or intimidated to do so. The camera should be there from the beginning. In the absence of the camera, a legal practitioner of his choice must be present as at the time of giving the said confessional statement.

The only question I have for the prosecuting team is, why did they tender the video recording wherein Chidinma denied the act, and also go ahead to tender a confessional statement that says otherwise? This is what we call contradictory evidence. I do not know how the court would rule, but this looks bad for the prosecutors.

This is not to mean that without a confessional statement there won’t be a conviction. It simply means that the prosecution would have to work harder. So, let’s see.