By Emmanuel Uffot
Iniubong Umoren: killed during job search
An Uyo High Court presided over by Justice Bassey Nkanang has fixed August 4, 2022 to deliver judgement on the trial of Uduak Frank Akpan, his father Frank Akpan and his sister Bassey -Awan Frank Akpan over alleged rape and murder of Miss Iniubong Umoren, a Philosophy graduate who went in search of job on April 29, 2022.
Justice Nkanang fixed the date for ruling, after the defense and prosecuting counsel adopted their final written briefs on Tuesday June 21, 2022.
While the first defendant, Uduak Akpan who is the principal suspect was arraigned on a two-count charge of rape and murder, his father Frank Akpan (second defendant) and sister Bassey- Awan Akpan (third defendant) were arraigned for accessory after the fact to murder.
In his submission, Barrister Samson Adula, defence counsel to the first defendant noted that in a case of this magnitude justice should not only be done but seen to have been done, but lamented that the first defendant had already been convicted by the court of public opinion.
Adula who is the State Chairman of Legal Aid Counsel, had prayed the court to discountenance the three confessional statements given by the first defendant in the trial- within- trialbecause it is a case whereby the offences which the defendant was alleged to have committed was not witnessed by anybody.
“My Lord, this is a case where the offences which the defendant was alleged to have committed was not witnessed by anybody”.
He urged the Judge, to exhibit the courage he is known for to discharge and acquit the first defendant in the overall interest of justice.
While also adopting the address of Barrister Abasiodiong Ekpenyong, counsel for second and third defendants whom he held brief for after obtaining permission to be represented as he was unavoidably absent, he equally prayed the court to discharge and acquit the second and third defendants for the offence of accessory after the fact to murder they are being charged, on the ground that both the defence and prosecution counsel are all in agreement that as at the time the first defendant was arrested the day after the alleged date of commission of the offence, the offence for which he was arrested was offence of kidnapping and not murder, so the second and third defendants could not have committed accessory after the fact to murder “ I pray the Court to discharge and acquit the second and third defendants. My Lord this is a case where the second and third defendants are charged for offence of accessory after the fact to murder. “My Lord, we submit that both the prosecution and defence are all in agreement that the first defendant was arrested the day after the alleged date of commission of the offence”.
“My Lord, the prosecution and defence are also in agreement that as at the time the first defendant was arrested, the offence for which the first defendant was arrested that day was offense of kidnapping and not murder, and as such the second and third defendants cannot be said to be accessory after the fact to murder”.
He stressed that there was no evidence before the court indicating that the second and third defendants knew the first defendant allegedly committed murder. Adula in his painstaking submission, described the case of the third defendant as more pathetic as she was charged for the mere fact of not only communicating with her brother but haboured him for 30 minutes.
On the second defendant, his plea to the Judge was to passionately look at his status as a senior citizen, having served the country for 35 years given the ordeal that he is being subjected to presently”, Adula submitted. He therefore prayed the court to discharge and acquit the second and third defendants accordingly.
However, Friday Itim the prosecution counsel who is deputy director Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) while adopting his final address filed on June 16, 2022 faulted the submission of the defense counsel that there was no evidence before the court that the second and third defendants were culpable of the charge of accessory after the fact to murder.
He insisted that evidences have shown that both defendants encouraged the first defendant to escape to Calabar, Cross River State through their communication with him through phone. He drew inference from the testimony of the second defendant admitting to the court that he sent a text message to his daughter (third defendant) in Calabar. Insight into the text message he sent read “he said he is using flying boat. It is better to escape than to die”. Itim said the text message was enough weighty evidence to show the culpability of both defendants and prove the case of accessory after the fact to murder against them by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. He therefore submitted emphatically that with all these evidences, the prosecution has proven its count charges against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt and they should be convicted and sentenced respectively according to law. “And that being so, in the interest of justice, I pray this honourable Court to hold that the defendants should accordingly be convicted and sentenced respectively according to law”. Itim, maintained that the conviction of Frank Akpan will send a message to parents to take appropriate action to curtail the excesses of their children when they go astray instead of putting a blind eye.
The trial judge Nkanang after listening to the final addresses adjourned the case to August 4, 2022 for judgement.
However, before Justice Nkanang adjourned the case for final ruling, he commended the counsels for the professionalism they exhibited during the course of the trial and their cooperation in ensuring a speedy trial without indulging in unnecessary quest for adjournments.
In a similar vein, Barrister Uwemedimo Nwoko, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who represented the deceased family and Ati Annang, a socio-political group of Annang extraction where the deceased hails from and which he is the National President, equally commended the Judge for the way he handled the case particularly in a record time of barely one year as against cases of such magnitude that usually goes for two to three years. He noted that this was a case that attracted attention not only in Akwa Ibom but globally, and stressed that the committed effort put in by the Judge to ensure speedy dispensation of justice will be a landmark precedent in the Nigerian judiciary.
Nwoko, also commended the defence and prosecution counsel for their cooperation to ensure a speedy trial, maintaining that the general objective is not really to give justice but to ensure that justice is seen to be done in record time.
The background of the case dates back to April 29, 2023 when the 26-year-old fresh graduate of Philosophy from the University of Uyo, Iniubong Umoren responded to a job vacancy advertised on Twitter. She was invited by Uduak Akpan regarding the job. She consequently left her house to honour the invitation and thereafter could no longer be reach.
Umoren’s friend Uduak Umoh, whom she intimated about the job vacancy issue, had raised an alarm after her whereabout became unknown and posted it on Facebook that she may have been kidnap while going for the job interview.
Uduak (Left) the suspect paraded by police for allegedly killing Iniubong (right)
It was on the strength of this information about a possible kidnap of the job seeker by Uduak Akpan who invited her,that the Anti-Kidnapping Unit of Akwa Ibom State police command swung into action and arrested the suspect father’s Mr Frank Akpan when the former absconded.
It was after his arrest on April 30, 2021 that the true circumstances that led to the alleged killing of Umoren emerged through his written confession to the police and later the Department of State Services, DSS investigators that were drafted into the case by the state to enable a thorough job as disclosed by the deputy director DPP who was the state prosecuting counsel. Itim “the DSS had to come into the matter to ensure that nothing was swept under the carpet”.
Uduak’s culpability in the murder of the deceased was confirmed by a DSS officer Ama Okeke when he testified in court. The DSS officer who was the last prosecution witness (PW10), recounted the confessional statement made by the first defendant to his investigating team voluntarily. Okeke testified that the first defendant confessed how his pseudo job interview invitation had lured the deceased to his residence, rape and eventually killed her during a scuffle with the deceased. According to his account, when it dawned on the deceased that he might harm her if she did not allow him have sex with her, Miss Umoren, agreed on the condition that he used condom and in the process of having intercourse with her he attempted to remove the condom and the deceased struggled with him and used an available iron she could lay hands to hit him on the forehead. Frank said he thereafter he carried a stabilizer to hit her on her stomach and she started bleeding profusely. It was in that process that he used a black cloth and stuff in her mouth to prevent her from shouting. He said before that, she had made a voice message to somebody he did not know. He further confessed that after stuffing her mouth with black cloth, he then removed her jeans trouser and strangle her. He then went to the back of the building, dug a shallow grave, drag her with the cloth stuffed in her mouth and the jeans still tied on her neck and buried her before going to clean the blood in the room.
It could be recalled that the first defendant during interrogation after his arrest, had confessed not only to the police and DSS of committing the crime in his statements, but had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder when he was first arraigned together with his father on July 26, 2021 before Justice Bennett Illaumo in Akwa Ibom High Court 6, Uyo whose transfer led to the case transferred to Justice Nkanang.
However, the trial later took a dramatic twist when the first defendant and principal suspect recanted his earlier statements to the police and DSS and his admission of guilt before the court. He said that he made the statements to the police and State Security investigating team under duress to avoid further torture he was subjected. He also said he was tortured and compelled to sign the statement. On the video recorder of his statement to DSS, he admitted that although the voice on the disc was his, but he was tutored on what to answer.
He said, “They said I should practice those questions and answers and they also said when they start recording that I should give them the answers according to what I practiced”.
It was based on the denial by first defendant that he made the statement involuntarily that prompted his lawyer, Samson Adula to object to its admissibility on the ground that it was not made voluntarily
Consequent upon this denial and objection by his counsel, the trial judge step down further hearing and called for a trial-within-trial to authenticate the veracity of the statements and determined whether it was truly made under duress.
However, when cross-examined in the trial-within-trial, the DSS investigator, Ama Okeke (PW10) told the court that the allegation that the first accused made the statement the prosecuting counsel sought to tender in evidence involuntarily was not correct.
The prosecution witness testified that the DSS has a standard interrogation room with electronic gadgets, cameras, recorder, pen, tables, chairs among others, where a suspect could relax to write or make his or her statement voluntarily.
Okeke “And when the first accused person was in our interrogation room, he was asked if he knows why he was in the DSS? My Lord he had voluntarily told my team that it is because he killed Iniubong Ephraim Umoren”.
The witness further testified that, it was not also correct that the video recording of the first accused which was played in the court was as a result of questions and answers as alleged by the first accused person, noting that his team only asked Uduak Akpan to narrate what happened that led to the death of Iniubong Umoren.
Also aligning with the DSS officer, the prosecution counsel wondered why the first accused kept claiming that he was tortured to sign a statement, and also denying making statement in connection with the charge brought against him.
He explained that in the video recording played in court where Uduak Akpan was confessing to the DSS investigation team, there was nothing showing that he was being threatened or tortured.
Ruling in the trial-within -trial, Justice Nkanang, described the claims by the first defendant that he made his confessional statement to police and DSS under duress as a clear afterthought and dismissed the allegation of involuntariness of the confessional statement by him.
“I have appraised the testimonies of the witnesses in this trialwithin trial and I have juxtaposed them with the requirements for challenging the admissibility of a document on grounds of involuntariness.”
“The confession of the first accused person as set out in his contested statement of 30th April 2021 is largely corroborated by the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses.
“The allegation by Uduak Frank Akpan that he made the confessional statement under duress is clearly a sloppy afterthought when considered side by side with the totality of the circumstances.
“The sole issue for determination herein is resolved in favour of the Prosecution and the allegation of the instant statement of the first accused person as raised, canvassed, and escalated in this trial within trial by and on behalf of the first accused person is hereby discountenanced and dismissed.”
The second defendant, during cross examination in the trial told the court that he was not in the house and only got a call from his son that he wants to go to Calabar to visit her elder sister, and he therefore intimated his daughter that her brother was coming. Mr Akpan insisted that he was unaware of thecommission of any crime by his son until the police visited and arrested him. He also denied knowing that the body of the deceased was exhumed from his compound while in custody. Led in evidence by his counsel, he said the first accused had mental ailment called Shizophrenia and was a patient of the University of Uyo Teaching Hospital.
Schizophrenia, is a mental disorder that affects a person ability to think, feel and behave clearly. Treatment can help but cannot be cured. A chronic case can last for years or lifelong. Causes could include, genetics, environment and altered brain chemistry.
Similarly, Bassey -Awan the third defendant, an hair stylist who was charged for harbouring her brother in her Calabar residence, Cross River State with intention to aid him escape punishment for the alleged crime in her evidence, admitted that he visited her on April 30, 2021 but denied knowing that he alegedly killed Miss Umoren before the visit. She told the court that at the time her brother visited, she had read on Facebook that he abducted Umoren who was said to be missing. She said her brother did not respond when she asked him about the Facebook post linking him to the missing person. She said she showed him pictures of the lady and told her brother to go and clear his name“Go and clear your name about the Facebook post I saw”.
She admitted reporting her brother’s visit to his father through phone call. When asked if she reported to the police that her brother who was accused of kidnapping Miss Umoren, was in her house, she said no.
During the course of police investigation, Uruan Local Government Chairman of Iniobong Ekpenyong, was linked to the case when while parading the suspect , the Akwa Ibom police Command PPRO Odiko Macdon had said Uduak confessed to telling the council chairman about his atrocity before escaping to Calabar.
But the council boss in his defence, denied claims that Uduak confessed to him before escaping to Calabar as alleged by the police. He said it was not true as that statement by the police PRO portrays him as not only a partner in the crime but capable of tarnishing his reputation.
He said he got information that an elderly man was arrested by the police on account of his son’s offence, and that the police were bent on detaining him till his son who absconded turn in himself. That he swung into action by persuading the boy to turn himself to clear his name since he was still denying committing the offence. The Council boss reiterated his position that contrary to the insinuation by the police is him that facilitated the accused arrest by the DPO through communication with him on phone which portrayed him as being as being a partner in crime.
Also interrogated during investigation were Samuel Ezeugo, a Superintendent of police and DPO of the police division that supervised the arrest of Uduak and a civil servant Kufre Effiong with the Federal Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, a close relation of suspect who were all linked to the case given the telephone calls they had with the accused after the said date of commissionof crime. But like the local government chairman, they denied that they aided the accused, rather they explained that their communication with him was aimed at facilitating his arrest.
Police Officer attached to the State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (SCIID), Homicide Unit ASP, Kanu Ekpezu in his testimony before the court as PW 9, said the Anti- Kidnapping Unit, in State Police Command Ikot Akpan Abia handed over Uduak Frank and his father Frank Akpan, first accused and second accused persons respectively to the SCIID and they made their statements by themselves. He also said the Anti-Kiddnapping Unit also handed alongside the suspects, a spade exhibit 9, Qlink stabilizer-10 and a piece of dirty clothe-11 which were recovered from the scene of murder as exhibits. He testified that Uduak Frank Akpan made his statement in the Senior Police Officers (SPOs) office and not in interrogation room in the presence of three police officers including Inspector Ofonime Archibong when the accused wrote his statement by himself.
SAN): Commends presiding judge and counsel for speedy trial
As the curtain has been drawn on the trial and judgement fixed for August 4, 2022 there is anxiety in the state and within the legion of followers of the case, principally the family and friends of the deceased on what the judgement will be.
Another take home in the sensitive nature of the case was the revelation by Barrister Adula, counsel to the principalsuspect/first defendant about the threats he received from several sources since he took over the case. It is believed that this may have informed the withdrawal of the initial counsel for second and third defendants. Again, given his position as head of the legal Aid Counsel, his legal service at the instance of government was offered free due to the nature of the case.
According to laid down provisions for offence of murder or any offence that carries death penalty and life imprisonment, accuse person must be represented by a lawyer. If he has no financial ability to enlist a lawyer, the law provides for government to get a lawyer for the person.
They were first arraigned on July 26, 2021 before Justice Bennett Illaumo before he was transferred and the case wastaken over by Justice Nkanang. The first accused pleaded guilty when the charges were first read to him.
Uduak Frank and his father were the first to be charged before the court, before Bassey- Awan the former elder sister was arraigned 4 months later after unfolding evidences linked her to the crime.
A total of 10 prosecution witnesses testified in the course of the 11-month trial and 18 exhibits were admitted. Some of the exhibits included four phones, video compact disc, a spade, Qlink stabilizer, a dirty clothe and statements of the three defendants
The penaltay for the offence of murder which is punishable under section 326(1) of the criminal code, cap 33 volume 2, laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000 is death and life imprisonment as case may be and that of rape according the signing of the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Law of 2010 by Akwa Ibom State Government provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for offenders.
Accordingly, for offence of accessory after the facts to murder in particular as provided in the law which explains that if somebody commits an offence of murder and another person assists that person in an attempt to evade justice, the maximum sentence is imprisonment for life.
