The Supreme Court has dismissed the long-running case against retired Major Hamza Al-Mustapha over the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, the wife of the presumed winner of Nigeria’s annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election, Chief Moshood Abiola.
Alhaja Abiola was assassinated in Lagos on June 4, 1996, at the height of nationwide protests triggered by the annulment of her husband’s electoral victory. Major Al-Mustapha, who served as Chief Security Officer to former military ruler General Sani Abacha, was accused of masterminding the killing.
He was arraigned by the Lagos State Government alongside Mohammed Abacha, son of the late military leader, and Lateef Shofolahan, on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit murder and murder.
In a judgment delivered on January 30, 2012, the Lagos State High Court, presided over by Justice Mojisola Dada, convicted the defendants and sentenced them to death by hanging. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict on July 12, 2013, discharging and acquitting all the accused on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Lagos State subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which in 2014 granted it leave to re-open the case despite the expiration of the time allowed under the court’s rules. The state was given 30 days to file its notice of appeal.
When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, Lagos State failed to appear in court and had not filed any legal processes since obtaining the leave to re-open the case in 2014.
Counsel to Al-Mustapha, Mr. Paul Daudu, SAN, informed the court that the state had taken no steps to challenge his client’s acquittal, arguing that the appeal had effectively been abandoned.
A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Uwani Musa Aba-Aji, confirmed that hearing notices were duly served on Lagos State but noted the absence of any legal representation or explanation for its non-appearance.
In a brief ruling, the apex court held that the state had shown a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, stressing that nine years was more than sufficient time to file the necessary processes. Consequently, the appeal marked SC/CR/45/2014 was dismissed.