ODAHIEKWU OGUNDE, YENAGOA
Counsel for the family of murdered Innocent Kokorifa, a 17-year-old son of an official of Federal Road Safety Corps, Ebikebuna Aluzu (Esq), has described as absurd the position of the police lawyer calling for the dismissal of the petition.
The case is before the Bayelsa State Judicial panel of Inquiry on police brutality and extra-judicial killings.
Kokorifa was allegedly killed by men of the Anti-Vice unit of the Bayelsa State Police Command in August, 2016, along the Air Force road at Okaka-Epie, Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
Father or the deceased, Daniel Kokorifa, had in a petition dated November 4, 2020, No. EAA/PI/BYS/240/2020, through his counsel, Augustine Aluzu Esq and Associates, said his 17-year-old son was shot from behind by one Police Corporal Vincent Koiamaowei without provocation.
But the counsel for the police, Z. Gwegwe, Esq., informed the panel that they had been served notice of preliminary objections by the petitioner’s counsel.
She, therefore, tendered her response as follows: “That the subject matter of the petitioner’s petition was not within the confines, boundaries and scope of jurisdiction of the Bayelsa State Judicial Panel of Inquiry on Police Brutality and Other Related Matters.
“That the matter upon which the petitioner’s preliminary objection is based, was already determined on October 5, 2018 and the defendant was sentenced to death by hanging.
“That by Section 32, sub-section 6 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999, as amended, the petitioner’s petition amounted to a double jeopardy for the convict by the decision of the court. She, therefore, prayed the panel to dismiss the petitioner’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.”
But Aluzu, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the panel was well “clothed with the competence and jurisdiction” to hear, entertain, investigate and make its reports regarding the petitioner’s petition.
Referring to the rules of proceedings of the panel, Section 12, paragraph A, B, and C, he submitted that the end result of the panel was not to pass judgment or find anybody guilty but to make recommendations.
He said that position was contained in Section 12, paragraph C of the Rules of Proceedings of the panel.
He further submitted that there were sufficient particulars in the petition that brought the petition within the competence of the judicial panel of inquiry.
He referred the panel to the petitioner’s petition, page 6, paragraphs 29, 30, 31,32, and 34, and therefore prayed the panel to dismiss and discountenance the respondent’s preliminary objections.
He added: “Today’s matter was adjourned for the respondent to file their response to the petition of my client. But instead, they brought a notice of preliminary objection which was quickly responded to orally and the panel adjourned till February 17, 2021 for ruling.
“They challenged the jurisdiction of the panel to hear and entertain the petition which we find absurd because the panel is not to sentence anybody; they even mentioned that if the panel hears the matter it will amount to double jeopardy because the person who killed my client’s son has been convicted by court.
“The petition is not against the convict but against the police service commission which is an institution, it doesn’t matter if the IGP has been removed, or the convicted person is now dead because they were only joined as co-respondents because they have a case to answer in the petition.
“The matter is not open for further investigations because there’s already a judicial pronouncement on the matter, but the issues we are raising include why did police then keep extorting money from my client, a grieving father, to the point that he had to pay to get authority to bury his son.”