By Abdulwahab  Abdulah & Bartholomew  Madukwe
LAGOS — Attempts  by Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, former chief security officer to the late Head of State, Gen. Sani  Abacha, to frustrate cross examination by the prosecution from one of the statements he claimed to have made under duress while he was being investigated for alleged murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, wife of late Chief M.K.O. Abiola suffered set back yesterday with the trial court dismissing his objection.

The trial Judge, Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos High Court, Igbosere ruled that though the statement was not part of the one tendered during the evidence in chief, there was nothing wrong with the prosecution to cross examine Al- Mustapha on the said statement.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sambo Vs State 1993 7NWLR part 300 page 5, Justice Dada held:  “I hold that the principle at Sambo Vs the State is still the same here and leave is hereby granted the prosecution to confront the first defendant with portion which is considered contradiction and I so hold.”
The court held that the document under contention had been identified by the 1st defendant (Al-Mustapha) as a statement he made under serious torture like every other statements he made.

“The Supreme Court in Sambo Vs the State 1993 7NWLR part 300 page 417 paragraph D held that where a witness’s previous witness is intended to be used by counsel during prosecution to contradict his evidence in court his attention must first be drawn to the contradictory portion of his previous statement so as to give him the opportunity to explain same if possible.”

“In section 209 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution is at liberty to draw attention to the statement on what is the alleged contradictory fact since the 1st defendant has identified it as a statement allegedly made under torture even though it is not confessional in nature. It does not amount to an exhibit yet but therefore it premature to comment beyond this at this state.

I hold that the principle at Sambo Vs the State is still the same here and leave is hereby granted the prosecution to confront the first defendant with portion which is considered contradiction and I so hold”.