Shedding Light on His Innocence and Securing His Freedom
By: Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi
“Wrongful accusation, wrongful arrest, wrongful detention, wrongful prosecution, and wrongful conviction. Don’t blame the judge who passed the judgment; blame the police and the false witnesses. The prosecution can only work based on the evidence supplied to him by the police, the judge can only work based on the evidence before him.”
It was the week following our successful efforts in securing the freedom of Olushina Ajayi after 21 years when Ejire, one of our associates, approached us to share another heartbreaking case.
Ejire: “Sir, there is a man in Kirikiri Maximum Security prison, the oldest on death row, sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit.”
Me: “How do you know he is innocent?”
Ejire: “We were together in Agodi prison before he was condemned, and we met again on death row in Ibara, Abeokuta. Every day, he cursed his accuser for sending him to the gallows unjustly.”
Me: “How long has he been imprisoned?”
Ejire: “He has been on death row for 18 years.”
Me: “18 years on death row!”
This revelation compelled me to delve deeper into the legal battle of those ensnared in the web of injustice. As a layperson, faced with such a claim of innocence, where does one begin to seek justice?
When someone not versed in the law is approached with a plea for help, how does one navigate the complexities of the legal system to right a wrong? As we worked on securing his release, more individuals with similar grievances sought our assistance.
The next day, I received a call from Kirikiri Maximum Prison; it was the man in question. He shared his story and pleaded his innocence. I promised to visit him but stressed the importance of hearing his wife’s account. Shortly after, his brother, Honorable Malruf, and other family members visited our office to share their side of the story.
During the meeting, his wife recounted the events that led to her husband’s unjust imprisonment for 23 years. The gravity of their ordeal became apparent as we listened to their heartbreaking tale.”
The woman said, “My husband was not in Ibadan on the day the night guard was killed. He went to Lagos with my second wife to see her brother who had an accident. The murder incident happened on February 16, 1998. My husband traveled to Lagos with his second wife on the morning of February 16, 1998, and returned on February 17, 1998. The police came to arrest him on the morning of February 18. I provided all these statements to the police and before the judge, yet my
husband was sentenced to death. My husband had a previous misunderstanding with Kehinde Ilori, the woman who owns a shop opposite our house. It was the same police in charge of that case who came to arrest my husband. My husband did not kill the night guard, Kareem Ayuba. He had no quarrel with him. My husband was a victim of circumstances.”
I was emotionally moved by the story of this woman. How can someone be maltreated in this way? Emotions must be set aside. Let me have the court record to enable me to study it and verify the truth of the woman’s statements.
This was how I began my voyage of discovery to unravel the truth about Kazeem Ayinde’s story. I applied for the certified true copy of the judgment and the case file from the High Court Registry on Ring Road. It was shocking to hear that the record had not yet returned from the Court of Appeal. I went to the Court of Appeal with my application and discovered from the records that it was transmitted to the Supreme Court on June 17, 2017, and has not yet been returned. Can I have the judgment of the Court of Appeal? I applied and it was made available for my reading. I have a contact person at the Supreme Court whom I contacted to help me confirm the status of the case. She said the case has not yet been assigned. Ah! This is 2019.
It is the state’s practice that before one can be granted amnesty, they must have exhausted the appeal to the Supreme Court or withdraw their further appeal. However, in this case, this man has spent a solid 18 years waiting for his appeal to be completed at the Supreme Court. From the day of his conviction to the Court of Appeal judgment, it took 15 solid years. I went through the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which provided insight into the case file and the trial of the lower court. It is quite possible to deduce the facts of the matter in this case.
Based on the information provided from the appeal court judgment:
- There was a previous misunderstanding between the complainant PW3 and Kazeem Ayinde, which led to a wrongful accusation.
- The deceased, a night guide, was also wrongly accused and arrested in a previous case with the appellant by the complainant in this case.
- The appellant raised an alibi that he was not in Ibadan on the day of the incident but the police did not investigate his claim.
- Kazeem Ayinde was sentenced to death solely based on the dying declaration statement of the deceased.
- The court relied on the evidence of PW1, PW3, and PW4 to convict the appellant.
- The appellant maintained his innocence throughout the trial.
- The appellant spent a total of 23 years in prison before his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and later granted total amnesty after 24 years and 10 months behind bars.
ROOT OF BITTERNESS
As the investigation into Kazeem Ayinde’s case continued, it was revealed that a previous misunderstanding with PW3 Kehinde Ilori in November 1997 had led to false accusations against him. Kazeem was wrongly accused of breaking into Kehinde’s shop and stealing a bag of rice. Kehinde, utilizing her connections to the police, reported the alleged theft to the Iyaganku Police Station.
The following day, a senior police officer visited the station and questioned the detainees about the reasons for their arrests. Kazeem explained the circumstances that led to his arrest in Oje, prompting the senior officer to challenge the arresting officer, pointing out that Oje was not under the jurisdiction of Iyaganku. With no evidence linking Kazeem to the alleged crime, he was subsequently released from Iyaganku Police Station.
However, the aftermath of this incident would set off a chain of events that would have far-reaching consequences for Kazeem.
Following Kazeem Ayinde’s release from the false allegations at Iyaganku Police Station, a significant turn of events unfolded. A week later, a thief was apprehended at a crime scene in a different location. Initially suspected of armed robbery, the thief confessed to the police that his criminal specialty was breaking into houses and shops when the owners were absent. He admitted to various past criminal activities, including the burglary at PW3 Kehinde Ilori’s shop where the bag of rice was stolen.
The thief led the police to Kehinde’s shop and confessed to breaking in and stealing the rice. Interestingly, prior to this revelation, Kehinde had already taken action by arresting the night guard under suspicion of being involved in the burglary. This crucial information was documented in the Certified True Copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Upon learning of the thief’s confession and arrest, someone informed Kazeem about the developments. Fueled by a mix of vindication and frustration, Kazeem confronted Kehinde at her shop, pointing out the injustice he had faced and implying that divine judgment would prevail.
In response to Kazeem’s confrontation, Kehinde, unwilling to admit her wrongdoing, took drastic action. She collaborated with a police officer, PW4, who had testified against Kazeem previously, to implicate him as a co-perpetrator in the crime. This marked the beginning of a new chapter in Kazeem’s tumultuous journey, as he found himself ensnared in a web of deceit and false accusations that would cast a shadow over his life for the next 24 years.
Our visit to Kazeem Ayinde in Kirikiri
To every man crying persistently on the claim of the innocence of the crime behind the bar there is another side of his story
During our visit to Kazeem Ayinde in Kirikiri prison, Apapa Lagos, he shed more light on what actually transpired. Here is an excerpt of his own side of the story: “When I was informed in the
evening that the police had arrested the real perpetrator of the crime, I went and challenged her on the need to apologize for defaming my character. Moreover, why should you keep quiet after the police have arrested the real perpetrator of the crime? I told her, ‘May God judge you.’ The following day, I challenged her (Kehinde Ilori). She brought the police to come and arrest me. This same police officer, PW4, locked me up in the cell with the criminal along with the same night guard who was later killed. The criminal and I were charged in court, and the night guard was released from the police station. When we got to court, my lawyer applied for my bail, and I was granted bail by the court.” The night guard never made any statement against me. What could have been the reason for me to kill him?
When the murder of Kareem Ayuba occurred, PW3 also played a significant role in advocating for the case. She suggested that I should be arrested again and implicated in the murder of Kareem Ayuba, who was a night guard on the street. While I was attending court for the shop burglary case, the police arrived at my house three days after Kareem Ayuba’s murder, resulting in me facing two separate cases.
- The case involving the shop of Kehinde Ilori, where she was the complainant.
- The murder case of Ayuba Kareem, the night guard on the street.
The authorities claimed that the night guard mentioned my name, Kazeem Pele, because I have three marks (Pele). The question arises: if he truly mentioned my name before his death, why did the police wait until the third day to arrest me?
As a result, I was remanded in Agodi prison facing two cases with the same complainant and the same Investigation Police Officer. As the legal proceedings unfolded, I was eventually discharged and acquitted in the first case, while the actual perpetrator received a three-year prison sentence. I maintain that I had no motive to harm Ayuba and am innocent of the accusations against me.
After reviewing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it is evident that there are significant concerns regarding the reliance on dying declarations as evidence. The law stipulates specific criteria that must be met before an accused person can be convicted of murder. These include proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased has died, that the accused unlawfully killed the deceased, and that the death was a direct result of the accused’s actions to the exclusion of other probable causes.
Key questions arise from this case: Was it indeed the appellant who killed the deceased? Can the death of the deceased be directly linked to the appellant? Were there witnesses who saw the
appellant inflicting the fatal injury on the deceased? Did anyone hear the deceased cry out or mention the appellant’s name during the incident? What was the surrounding environment like at the time of the incident? And most crucially, what could have been the motive for killing the deceased?
Regarding the motive, the Court’s ruling is based on the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the killing. Instead, the trial judge relied on statements made by the deceased to witnesses PW1 and PW2 while he lay injured, implicating the appellant as his assailant. These statements, combined with previous threats attributed to the appellant, were considered as a motive and used to connect the appellant to the death of the deceased.
The reliance on dying declarations and circumstantial evidence raises doubts about the fairness and accuracy of the judgment. The absence of concrete proof directly linking the appellant to the crime calls into question the validity of the conviction. It is essential to thoroughly examine all aspects of the case to ensure justice is served and the truth is revealed.
It is crucial to address the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the case, particularly concerning the death of the night guard and the evidence presented during the trial. The following points highlight the key issues raised:
- Night Guard’s Role: The night guard was not a personal guard or employee of Kehinde Ilori, as portrayed in the court proceedings. He served as a guide for the community and was tragically murdered on a street junction in Oje, not in front of Kehinde Ilori’s house. There was no indication of a specific clash or conflict between the appellant and the deceased, making the motive for the alleged crime unclear.
- Lack of Shop Break-in Reports: Contrary to the narrative presented, there were no reports of shop break-ins in the vicinity that night, which could have led to the night guard witnessing the appellant committing a crime. The absence of such incidents raises doubts about the circumstances surrounding the night guard’s death and the alleged involvement of the appellant.
- Evidence of PW4: The testimony of PW4, Sgt Adeyera Adegoke, played a significant role in the conviction of the appellant. His account of the dying declaration made by the deceased, implicating the appellant in the attack, was a crucial piece of evidence. However, questions arise about the reliability of this testimony and whether it was the sole basis for the conviction.
- Witness Testimonies: Prior to PW4’s evidence, testimonies from PW1, PW2, and PW3 indicated that they heard the deceased mention the appellant’s name during the incident. The consistency of this claim among multiple witnesses raises concerns about potential biases or inaccuracies in the accounts provided.
- Court’s Decision**: The Court’s ruling, based on the dying declaration and testimonies, concluded that the appellant was responsible for the fatal injuries inflicted on the deceased. This decision was influenced by the statements made by the deceased before his death, as reported by witnesses and the police officer.In light of these discrepancies and uncertainties surrounding the case, further scrutiny of the evidence and a comprehensive review of the circumstances leading to the night guard’s death are necessary to ensure a fair and just assessment of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged crime.