Maryam Sanda appeals death sentence, files 20 grounds of appeal

A housewife, Maryam Sanda, who was sentenced to death for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello has asked the Court of Appeal, Abuja to void and set aside the death sentence.

She was sentenced to death by hanging last month by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

Senate probes GSM operators over drop calls

In her appeal against the death sentence, the convict claimed that the trial judge was tainted by bias and prejudices leading to her being denied fair hearing leading to her consequent conviction. 

Maryam averred that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence despite the reasonable doubt created by evidence of witnesses, lack of a confessional statement, absence of murder weapon, lack of corroboration of evidence by two witnesses and lack of autopsy report to determine the true cause of her husband’s death.

In the notice of appeal predicated on 20 grounds and filed by her counsel, Rickey Tarfa (SAN), Maryam said the judgment of the trial court was completely “a miscarriage of justice.”

She pointed to the failure of the trial judge to rule 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.

The appellant submitted that “the trial judge erred in law when having taken arguments on her preliminary objection to the validity of the charge on March 19, 2018, failed to rule on it at the conclusion of trial or at any other time.

“The trial judge exhibited bias against the defendant in not ruling one way or the other on the said motion challenging his jurisdiction to entertain the charge and therefore, fundamentally breached my right to fair hearing.”

In ground 2, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred and misdirected himself by usurping the role of the police when he assumed the duty of an investigating police officer.

The appellant submitted that the wrongful assumption of the role of an IPO made “the trial judge fail to restrict himself to the evidence adduced before the court, but instead went fishing for evidence outside those that were brought before the court.

“The duty of investigation is the constitutional preserve of the police, the constitutional duty of a trial court is to assess the credible evidence before it and reach a decision based on its assessment.”

In ground 5, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself on the facts when he applied the doctrine of last seen by holding that the appellant was the person last seen with the deceased and thus bears the full responsibility for the death of the deceased, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

She added that the statement of Sadiya Aminu, tendered before the trial court also confirmed that the deceased was alive though injured when she saw him.

It was averred that “the circumstantial evidence which the trial court relied upon in its application of the last seen doctrine does not lead to the conclusion that the defendant is responsible for the death of the deceased.”

Consequently, she prayed the Court of Appeal, Abuja to allow her appeal, set aside her conviction and the sentence imposed by the high court judge and acquit her.