Warning: include(/home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/af-companion/inc/notice-upgrade.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/af-companion/inc/class-aftc-main.php on line 999

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/af-companion/inc/notice-upgrade.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/alt/php72/usr/share/pear') in /home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/af-companion/inc/class-aftc-main.php on line 999

Warning: include(/home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/blockspare//admin/notice-upgrade.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/blockspare/inc/init.php on line 60

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/blockspare//admin/notice-upgrade.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/alt/php72/usr/share/pear') in /home/magidzxo/public_html/wp-content/plugins/blockspare/inc/init.php on line 60
Maryam Sanda Appeals her death sentence

Local News

Maryam Sanda Appeals her death sentence

By magic

February 21, 2020

Three weeks after she was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, Maryam Sanda has approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, praying it to set aside the judgment and acquit her.

She said the judgment of the trial court was tainted by bias and prejudices, which led to the denial of her right to fair hearing and her consequent conviction based on circumstantial evidence despite the reasonable doubt that was created by evidence of witnesses, lack of confessional statement, absence of murder weapon, lack of corroboration of evidence by two or more witnesses and lack of autopsy report to determine the true cause of her husband’s death.

In the notice of appeal predicated on 20 grounds and filed by her legal team headed by Rickey Tarfa (SAN), Maryam Sanda said the judgment of the trial court was completely, “A miscarriage of justice.”

She pointed to the failure of the trial judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu to rule, one way or the other, on her preliminary objection, challenging the charge preferred against her and the jurisdiction of the court as evidence of bias and a denial of her right to fair hearing as constitutionally guaranteed.