Saturday, December 28, 2024
Custom Text
Home NEWS Court discharges, acquits South Africa based Nigerian evangelist, John Arinze over illicit...

Court discharges, acquits South Africa based Nigerian evangelist, John Arinze over illicit drug trafficking

-

By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has discharged and acquitted a South Africa based Nigerian evangelist/pastor, John Vincent Arinze who stood trial for seven years (2016 – 2023) over alleged earlier charge of possession and exportation of 165 Kilogrammes of narcotic drugs purportedly detected inside two containers of foodstuff meant for export to South Africa.

The elated discharged and acquitted John Vincent Arinze was arrested and charged to court by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) over alleged possession, dealing and exportation of Methamphetamine and Ephedrine valued N1.4 billion, seized at the Apapa Seaport, Lagos.

Trial commenced on November 14, 2017 and concluded with the judgement on November 8, 2023 by Justice Ayokunle Faji after an amended charge of four counts dated 27th of February and filed 28th of February, 2020 respectively.

- Advertisement -

In the amended charge, the defendant now acquitted, was alleged to have exported, dealt and possessed 20 Kilogrammes of Methamphetamine and 50 Kilogrammes of Ephedrine.

Delivering the judgement on Charge No FHC/L/232c/16, between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and John Vincent Arinze, the trial judge, Justice Ayokunle Faji held that in a criminal trial, the prosecution has the onus of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

“A reasonable doubt does not mean some light, airy insubstantial doubt that may flip through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or the other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons”, the judge quoted the Indian Supreme Court while delivering the judgement.

Dwelling on the three counts charge against the defendant which were exportation, dealing and possession , the judge noted that there are two kinds of possession: actual possession and constructive possession.

“A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is then in actual possession of it. A person who although not in actual possession knowingly has both power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over a thing either directly or through another person or persons is then in constructive possession of it.”

- Advertisement -

Justice Faji noted that the plank of the case for the prosecution is that the defendant is the owner of the container in contention and that he instructed Mr Rogers to stuff same, preparatory to exportation and in the process the illicit substances of Methamphetamine and Ephedrine were stuffed into the container.

He also noted that from record of the court, there was no bill of lading in respect of the container. The defendant was not present when the container was sealed. There waa no financial link between the defendant and Rogers and Ikemefuna.

The court held that there is no evidence that the defendant was present when the container was stuffed with the said substance.

According to the record before the court, Rogers had shipped consignments for the defendant and defendant’s deceased wife on previous occasions and that he was also to ship a consignment for the defendant which consignment was shown to the NDLEA in a warehouse by the defendant.

There was also nothing when the said warehouse was searched.

Besides, court held that the said Rogers who was in the company of NDLEA personnel when the defendant was arrested did not testify as a witness and there was no plausible reason from the NDLEA as to why Rogers did not testify.

The judge said “Rogers is a vital witness as to the involvement of the defendant in this matter and not having testified, the case for the prosecution is definitely on shaky ground.”

“As regards each of the three (3) surviving counts therefore, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove an essential element of the offences therein, I must therefore discharge and acquit the defendant as regards all the said counts ”

“The defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted of the 3 counts in the instant charge.
“The instant charge is hereby dismissed ” Justice Faji declared in conclusion.

Must Read