Lawyers condemn killing of former CDS Badeh

…Say trial ends with his death As the condemnation of the killing of former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Alex Badeh continues yesterday some lawyers have called on the federal government to rise to the challenge of insecurity and put a stop to the frightening trend. They also unanimously agreed that his trial on eight count criminal charge for alleged N3.97 billion fraud before the Federal High Court Abuja has abruptly come to an end with his death. Dr Alex Izinyon SAN said the trial of Air Chief Marshal Badeh automatically come to an end because you cannot try a dead man. He has to be alive to face trial. The federal government and indeed all Nigerians must ensure we put to an end this frightening insecurity. Another lawyer who spoke extensively, Mr. Batholomew Ogah, said however that the matter is not dead because he is standing trial with one or two persons, these persons are companies, registered corporates entities. The companies are called person because a company raised under the law is said to be an artificial person, so the death of the first defendant on his part is the end of the matter but the trial of the company continues. That simply means the trial has not stopped but his trial by that unfortunate event terminates or ends in a way because you cannot try a dead man. It is a man who is alive that you can try, you cannot try a dead body or else people will judge you a very wicked person. On his properties which is the bone of contention, Ogah said those were mere allegations, on what grounds were the properties seized because it is yet to be established that the seize property is in connection with the deceased also it has not been proved or have been traced to any allegations which he is standing trial for. “My property can be seized, why are you seizing my property and if you are saying this property is linked to something have you proved that.” The matter is still pending before the court but as it stands now the deceased person is about to open his defence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. “Now, the prosecution has said I’m done with my case and he closed his case let us hear yours and he is now ready to tell the court that what the prosecution has said are all lies and now that opportunity is not there. So it is a novel issue that you and I would be watching to see what will happen but as it stands now, those property are not on trial, the person on trial is the deceased person, so obviously how do you reconcile that.” What the man is standing trial for is still an allegation and since it is an allegation it has not been proven but with this unfortunate incident will you, recall that the deceased person is to enter his defence in the next adjourned date, he is coming to tell the court that it is my property, this is how I got it or yes it is not my property but that opportunity to say it is my property and this is the manner I got it or it is not my property is no longer there. And his death cannot be ascribed to be a natural death. You and I are aware how he died, he was short lived. Therefore for the fact that some property linked to him are seized is still beclouded with some issue of evidence to prove that this property was gotten from the allegations he is standing trial whether the allegations is true or not would be dashed with this unfortunate incident. The deceased property is not on trial but the man on trial is the deceased person and the property was not tendered in court, also the reason why the properties were seized were not before the court, I’m not aware but if you are let me know. If government decide to seize the property of the deceased whatever reason they have done so, if due process is not followed can we say that that seizure is proper? Which court ordered the seizure of that property? If the deceased property was seized without any order of court you don’t need anyone to tell you that what was done was oppression. Remember this is a criminal trial and criminal trial is not transferable, the deceased person is the one to face it not his child or wife but however properties are transferable, the onus lie on the government or whoever seized the property to prove that the properties were gotten from corrupt proceeds. The person must be given opportunity to speak. Andrew Orolua, Abuja