The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed the death sentence imposed on Maryam Sanda, daughter-in-law of a former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), for the killing of her husband, Bilyamin Bello.
Sanda was convicted by an Abuja High Court on January 27, 2020, and sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty of culpable homicide in connection with the 2017 stabbing of her husband at their residence in Abuja. She had spent about six years and eight months at the Suleja Correctional Centre before President Bola Tinubu, exercising his executive prerogative of mercy, commuted her sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment.
Explaining the presidential decision, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said Sanda was granted clemency on compassionate grounds and in the best interest of her children. He cited her good conduct in custody, remorse, positive influence on fellow inmates, and adoption of a new lifestyle.
However, in a split decision of four to one, a five-member panel of the apex court upheld the earlier judgments of the lower courts sentencing her to death. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal in its entirety, ruling that it lacked merit.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein held that the prosecution proved the charge against Sanda beyond reasonable doubt. He affirmed that the Court of Appeal was right to uphold the trial court’s verdict, describing the decision as sound and unassailable.
Justice Adumein further faulted the grant of presidential pardon while Sanda’s appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court. He noted that the court had, in several previous decisions, criticised the Executive for extending clemency to convicts in capital cases before the conclusion of their appeals.
He stressed that such a pardon does not divest the Supreme Court of its constitutional authority to hear and determine appeals arising from death sentences.
“By Section 233(2)(d) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal in cases where a death sentence has been affirmed,” he said.
“I do not think that this jurisdiction can be affected by the grant of pardon by the Executive when an appeal against the death sentence is still pending. It is safer and better to delay the grant of amnesty or pardon until the appeal process is concluded.”
According to the court, the clemency granted to Sanda did not prevent it from proceeding to determine her appeal on its merits.
Justice Adumein added that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal, both of which held that Sanda intentionally and with premeditation killed her husband.
“What is clear from the record is that both lower courts found that the deceased was deliberately murdered by the appellant. This court sees no reason to disturb those findings,” he stated.
The apex court also rejected Sanda’s argument that Section 221 of the Child Rights Act, 2003, barred the court from sentencing her to death on the grounds that she was a nursing mother at the time of her conviction.
The court held that there was no evidence showing that she was either pregnant or nursing a child when she was convicted and sentenced. It further clarified that the Child Rights Act was designed to protect the rights of children and not to shield expectant or nursing mothers from criminal liability.
“The Act was never intended to prevent the prosecution or punishment of offenders simply because they are mothers,” Justice Adumein said.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, declaring it devoid of merit.
While Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Ibrahim Saulawa, and Chidiebere Uwa concurred with the majority decision, Justice Emmanuel Agim dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Agim allowed the appeal and set aside Sanda’s conviction and death sentence.
Sanda’s conviction had earlier been upheld unanimously by a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal on December 4, 2020, after the court dismissed her 20 grounds of appeal.
She had accused the trial judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, of bias and argued that her conviction was based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. She also alleged a denial of fair hearing, contending that there was no confessional statement, murder weapon, autopsy report, or corroboration by two witnesses linking her to the crime.
She further challenged the trial court’s failure to rule on a preliminary objection she filed, questioning the competence of the charge and the court’s jurisdiction. According to her, the omission rendered the entire proceedings a nullity.
In addition, Sanda accused the trial judge of assuming the role of an investigating police officer by allegedly stepping outside the evidence presented before the court to reach his conclusion.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed her arguments, holding that the evidence clearly established that she killed her husband. Although it faulted the trial judge for not ruling on the preliminary objection before judgment, the appellate court invoked its constitutional powers to consider and dismiss the objection itself.
The court maintained that the offence of culpable homicide committed by Sanda was punishable by death under Section 221 of the Penal Code. It also found evidence that the fatal incident occurred during a confrontation after Sanda reportedly discovered a nude photograph of another woman on her husband’s phone.
