Udeme Otike-Odibi, a lawyer accused of killing her husband, Symphorosa Otike-Odibi, on May 3, 2018, has asked the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere debunk her confessional statements made to the police.
Udeme is standing trial for allegedly stabbing her husband to death at their residence on the Diamond Estate, Sangotedo, Lagos State.
She was also said to have mutilated Symphorosa’s corpse after killing him.
The offences were said to contravene sections 165 (b) and 223 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.
During the last processing on January 23, 2019, the police witness, Olusegun Bamidele, had told the court that Udeme confessed to killing her husband.
The witness, who is an Assistant Superintendent of Police, had told the court that he was the head of the team that investigated the killing and that he personally recorded the defendant’s initial statement.
Read also: My husband raped my 2 daughters, defiled my underage – Trader tells court
The ASP added that she also met with Udeme when she was in protective custody at a police hospital in Ikeja, she wrote a detailed confessional statement.
However, Udeme’s counsel, Oluseye Banjoko questioned the admissibility of the statements.
Banjoko queried that the constitution made provisions that the statement of any person arrested must be made in the presence of a legal practitioner or must be videoed.
He added that Section 93 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2015, also made it mandatory that to achieve transparency in statements taken, the above law must be complied with.
He said, “Why the law was made was so that we do not waste the time of the court in going into trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the said statement.
“Our application is for an order rejecting the alleged confessional statements since the provisions of the law were not followed.”
Responding, the prosecutor, Shitta-Bey, said the provision of the constitution stated that the substantive law to be adhered to in determining the admissibility of any piece of evidence was the Evidence Act, 2011.
Shitta-Bey stated that the ACJL, which was referred to by the defence counsel, was a “procedural law, which cannot supersede the Evidence Act.”
She further urged the court to proceed with the trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the defendant’s statements.
The case was adjourned till April 21 for further hearing.
Leave a Reply