Home NEWS Assault: Doctors Accuse Kano Lawyer of Indiligent Prosecution in Colleague’s Case

Assault: Doctors Accuse Kano Lawyer of Indiligent Prosecution in Colleague’s Case

IMG 20240222 WA0007

By Correspondent

A team of doctors from Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital regularly gathers at court to support a colleague allegedly assaulted by Sa’id Muhammad, the son of ex-Kano State Commissioner for Religious Affairs, Muhammad Tahar Adamu.

However, these doctors have criticized the prosecuting lawyer for purportedly demonstrating alleged  incompetence and lacking dedication in the case.

The defendant allegedly assaulted the doctor on duty when he accompanied his wife to the hospital.

This incident has resulted in a legal battle between the legal representatives of the defendant, led by Barrister Rabiu Shuaibu Abdullahi, and Barrister Laraba Uba from the Kano State Ministry for Justice.

Justice Watch News reported that after the defendant granted bail by Kano Upper Shari’ah Court Judge Mallam Garba Hamza Malafa, the court asked the prosecution if they had witnesses to back the allegations against the defendant.

Read Also: Assault: Legal developments unfold as son of former Kano Commissioner pursues certiorari application

The counsel informed the court that they did not have any witnesses but pleaded with the court to order an oath of denial to be administered to the defendant, allowing him to support his denial and go free.

The defense lawyer objected to the prosecution’s prayer, arguing that it was not legal to direct his client to take an oath with the holy Qur’an when prima facie evidence was not established against the defendant.

He further contended that directing the defendant to administer an oath of denial would shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.

The defense lawyer pleaded with the court to refuse the prosecution’s request.

However, in his ruling, the presiding judge allowed the prosecution’s prayer and directed the defendant to swear on the holy Qur’an to support his denial, emphasizing that his court was a court of justice.

Read Also: Court Directs Former Kano Commissioner’s Son to Undergo Oath of Denial for Allegedly Assaulting Doctor

The judge also advised the lawyer to consult his client regarding the allegations before administering the oath of denial.

Barrister Shuaibu urged the court to adjourn the sitting to allow him to consult the defendant on whether to swear with the holy Qur’an, resolve the matter out of court amicably, or appeal the ruling of the court.

A few days before the court reconvened, the defendant and his lawyer approached the Kano State High Court presided over by Justice Usman Malam Na’abba with a certiorari application, challenging the ruling of the upper Shariah court that directed the defendant to swear on the holy Qur’an.

The High Court further restrained the Shariah Court from continuing to sit on the case pending the hearing and determination of the certiorari application.

During the mention of the case at the state High Court, Sa’id Muhammad and his lawyer were present, along with over a hundred doctors.

However, the prosecution handling the case was not in attendance until a lawyer from the Ministry held a brief for her.

Similarly, when the court reconvened last Thursday for the hearing, Sa’id Muhammad and his lawyer were in the court, and the doctors were also present.

Surprisingly, no lawyer from the Ministry of Justice was in the courtroom to argue the case.

Read Also: Gwagwarwa Community Protests Over Alleged Brutality, Killing of Cleaner by Military Officer in Kano

The counsel for the defendant, Barrister Rabiu Shuaibu, informed the court that the prosecution was absent and had not filed any court processes to counter his claim.

The lawyer urged the court to grant him leave to argue his case seeking judicial review of the Shariah Court ruling.

In his argument, the lawyer challenged the Shariah Court ruling for directing the defendant to swear on the holy Qur’an.

He emphasized that the charge against the defendant, assault, is criminal in nature and requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond any doubt.

He submitted that directing his client to swear on the holy Qur’an without establishing prima facie evidence against him contravened several laws.

The lawyer alleged that the presiding Upper Shari’ah Court Judge, Garba Hamza Malafa, erred and violated the law in the ruling delivered on February 21, 2024.

In that ruling, Judge Malafa ordered that an oath of denial be administered to Muhammad to prove his innocence.

Read Also: Court Jailed 18-year-old to life imprisonment for sodomy

In his argument, the lawyer challenged the Shariah Court ruling for directing the defendant to swear on the holy Qur’an.

After hearing the one-sided arguments regarding the alleged illegality of the Shariah Court’s directive for the defendant to swear on the holy Qur’an, and considering that no representatives from the Ministry for Justice in Kano were present to counter the defense lawyer’s claim, Justice Nabba adjourned the case to May 27th for a ruling.

Following the court session, a Justice Watch News correspondent observed a group of doctors expressing their dismay at the prosecution lawyer’s attitude. “She was not in the court last time, and now she’s absent again. This is unfortunate for the administration of justice,” they remarked.

Read Also: Kano Ex-Commissioner’s Son Versus Medical Doctor: Court Fixes May 2 For Hearing

However, the doctors were gathered and briefed by the Chairman of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Kano Branch, who assured them that they would not surrender or rest on their laurels.

When Justice Watch News contacted a lawyer who had been in the courtroom, regarding the absence of the prosecution during the hearing, the lawyer (who requested not to be named) stated, “The absence of the prosecution to counter all the submissions of the defense counsel may not be injurious, because all the defense counsel’s submissions were based on legal issues. Even without arguments from the other side, the court may still decide to grant or refuse. However, it is not good for a lawyer to fail to file court processes, especially when served.”

Unfortunately, the lawyer could not be reached for further comment, after several attempts.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here