The court upheld the judgement by the FCT High Court which had sentenced
her to death by hanging for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, son of
the former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),
Haliru Bello,
Her Counsel, Joe Gadzama SAN, however, said they are heading to the
supreme court, while Counsel to Police, James Idachaba, praised the
judgement, adding that they are also ready to meet them at the apex
court.
In his two-hour Judgement, Presiding Judge, Justice Steven Adah, held
that the court is duty-bound to do justice according to law and not
sentiments.
The judge held that the law does not leave room for irregularities,
adding that parties must conduct criminal trials according to the law.
Under Section 221 of the penal code, the court held that the trial judge
was right in his verdict, stressing that the offence is punishable by
death.
The court further held that it was not in doubt that Sanda killed her
husband, and has no reason to set aside the verdict of the lower court.
The Appeal court also noted that there was evidence that Maryam murdered
her husband during a fight after she saw a nude picture on his phone,
and she had threatened him, adding that it could be ruled as
premeditated murder.
Maryam Sanda was on January 27 found guilty of stabbing her husband to
death at their Abuja residence
Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court gave the sentence in Abuja
while delivering judgment on the protracted trial of Missus Sanda.
He sentenced Sanda after she was convicted for stabbing late Bilyaminu
to death, son of former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP), Mr Haliru Bello.
Upon her conviction by the judge, Sanda broke down in tears and wept
uncontrollably.
Not satisfied with the ruling, she had approached the appellate court in
Abuja to challenge the decision of the FCT High Court.
In the Notice of Appeal predicated on twenty grounds, Sanda prayed the
appellate court to set aside the verdict of the lower court and acquit
her.
She claimed that the trial judge, Justice Halilu was tainted by bias and
prejudices.
According to the appellant, this led to the denial of her right to a
fair hearing and her consequent conviction based on circumstantial
evidence.
Sanda alleged that the judge gave the verdict despite the reasonable
doubt that was created by evidence of witnesses, lack of confessional
statement, absence of murder weapon, lack of corroboration of evidence
by two or more witnesses, and lack of autopsy report to determine the
true cause of her husband’s death.
She insisted that the judgment of the trial court was complete “a
miscarriage of justice.”
The appellant also pointed to the failure of the trial judge to rule,
one way or the other, on her preliminary objection, challenging the
charge preferred against her and the jurisdiction of the court as
evidence of bias and a denial of her right to fair hearing as
constitutionally guaranteed.
She, therefore, asked the Court of Appeal to allow her prayers and set
aside her conviction and sentence and subsequently acquit her.