Jobs
Forum
You are here: Home / News / Appeal court
determines Rev. King’s fate today
Appeal court determines Rev. King’s fate
today
FEBRUARY 1, 2013 BY ADE ADESOMOJU 2
COMMENTS
Rev. King
| credits: naijamayor.com
The Court of Appeal in Lagos will Friday (today)
decide whether or not to quash the death
sentence passed on the General-Overseer of the
Christian Praying Assembly, Chukwuemeka
Ezeugo (aka Rev. King), by a Lagos High Court,
Ikeja on January 11, 2007.
The appellate court headed by Justice Amina
Augie on November 5, 2012 had heard arguments
of parties on the appeal filed by Ezeugo, through
his counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo.
Ojo had argued that the lower court judge, Justice
Joseph Oyewole, who handed down the death
sentence, erred in law in many respects.
But the prosecution, represented by the Lagos
State Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawal Pedro, (SAN),
urged the court to uphold Oyewole’s judgment.
“We urge your Lordships to dismiss this appeal,”
Pedro said.
Oyewole had convicted Ezeugo and sentenced
him to death by hanging for the alleged murder
of a church member, Ann Uzoh.
The cleric was on September 26, 2006, first
arraigned on six counts of attempted murder.
The prosecution had said Ezeugo poured petrol
on the deceased and five others and set them on
fire thereafter.
Uzoh died on August 2, 2006, 11 days after the
incident, because of the injuries sustained from
the incident.
However, Ojo, in his notice of appeal filed on
January 16, 2007, raised 16 grounds of appeal
against the judgment.
On June 10, 2008, the appellate court granted him
leave to argue additional grounds through an
amended notice of appeal filed on June 15, 2008.
At the hearing of the appeal, Ojo, who said
Ezeugo did not commit the crime and was not at
the scene, noted that Uzoh in two statements
before her death had said she sustained the
injuries in a generator accident.
He added that Uzoh exonerated Ezeugo in the
statements, claiming that the latter was not
responsible for her injuries.
Ojo further said there was a third statement in
which the deceased was said to have claimed the
appellant was the one who ordered petrol to be
poured on her, thereby contradicting the first
two statements