The Court of Appeal in Abuja has granted Kabiru Umar, popularly known as Kabiru Sokoto, permission to challenge his terrorism conviction and life sentence more than 12 years after judgment was delivered against him.
The appellate court gave Sokoto 21 days to file the necessary appeal processes challenging the December 20, 2013 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Sokoto had approached the Court of Appeal for an extension of time after failing to challenge his conviction within the statutory period prescribed for filing a criminal appeal.
He was convicted by Justice Adeniyi Ademola on a two-count terrorism charge connected with planned attacks in Sokoto State and his failure to disclose information concerning the December 25, 2011 bombing of St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State.
The Christmas Day attack, for which Boko Haram claimed responsibility, killed dozens of worshippers and injured several others.
The Federal High Court sentenced Sokoto to life imprisonment on the first count and an additional 10 years on the second count.
In his application before the Court of Appeal, Sokoto sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, permission to challenge the judgment, additional time to file his notice of appeal and an order deeming the notice already prepared as properly filed and served.
His lawyers explained that the prolonged delay was caused by circumstances beyond his control, including his continuous incarceration, repeated transfers between custodial facilities and difficulties accessing legal representation.
They also said two lawyers previously engaged to prosecute the appeal died before the process could be completed.
“The applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on December 20, 2013. The applicant has been continuously incarcerated since then,” the application stated.
“The applicant was moved across several custodial centres across different states, making access to counsel extremely difficult.
“The applicant’s trial counsel initiated steps towards appeal but died before perfecting same. Another counsel engaged thereafter also passed away before prosecuting the appeal.”
Sokoto’s proposed notice of appeal contains 12 grounds challenging both the legal foundation of his conviction and the evaluation of the evidence presented at trial.
They contended that the applicable legislation should have been the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011.
They contended that the applicable legislation should have been the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011.
The proposed appeal also alleges that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences or present credible and direct evidence linking Sokoto to the terrorist acts specified in the charge.
His legal team further challenged the admissibility and voluntariness of the confessional statement relied upon by the trial court. It alleged that the statement was prepared by an investigating officer in a question-and-answer format rather than freely narrated by Sokoto.
The lawyers also disputed the widespread description of Sokoto as having been convicted of personally carrying out or masterminding the Madalla church bombing.
They maintained that the relevant count accused him of having prior information about the attack and failing to disclose it to security agencies, arguing that the distinction between direct participation and prior knowledge was legally significant.
At the 2013 trial, however, the Federal High Court found that the prosecution had established the charges beyond reasonable doubt and relied partly on statements attributed to Sokoto and evidence concerning his alleged activities within Boko Haram.