Upholding the Integrity of the Judiciary and Setting the Record Straight on the Conviction of Olowookere Segun and Morakinyo Sunday
By, Akinwole Olasubomi A.
The Osun State Government’s recent consideration of the prerogative of mercy for convicted individuals has drawn significant attention and have invariably stirred public opinion based on incomplete or misleading narratives. While this action demonstrates the government’s commitment to exercising compassion and upholding constitutional provisions, it is imperative that such privilege is not misinterpreted or misused to distort the sanctity of judicial decisions. Misleading narratives aimed at undermining the judiciary not only threaten public trust but also obscure the real facts surrounding this case.
The Osun State Government deserves commendation for its thoughtful approach to this matter, particularly its willingness to consider clemency in light of the convicts’ circumstances through the prerogative of mercy as exercised by the executive arm of government is a constitutional provision designed to temper justice with compassion and mercy when appropriate. But this authority is not in anyway a critique of judicial decisions. Instead, it reflects a complementary relationship between the arms of government, underscoring the separation of powers.
However, it is equally crucial to avoid abusing this constitutional privilege by turning the law into a tool to fit a distorted narrative, especially one that trivializes the gravity of the original crimes. This recent development does not, and should not, be interpreted as a challenge to the judiciary’s authority. The judiciary’s role is to ensure that justice is served based on evidence and the letter of the law, while the executive’s mercy is a discretionary act that operates within a separate but complementary sphere.
It is therefore crucial to clarify the facts and reaffirm the role of the judiciary as the backbone of any functional democracy tasked with interpreting and enforcing the law impartially based on evidence, legal statutes, and due process. The misleading portrayal of the judiciary, and in particular the judge who presided over the case, is not only unfair but risks undermining public trust in this vital arm of government.
The current case is a reflection of this democratic balance. The judiciary fulfilled its mandate by delivering a verdict based on the facts and the law. Any subsequent exercise of clemency by the executive does not negate the judiciary’s integrity but highlights the collaborative nature of governance under the separation of powers.
The Facts of the Case
Contrary to sensationalized reports, the conviction of Olowookere Segun and Morakinyo Sunday was not for the petty theft of a fowl, but for armed robbery and related crimes. The prosecution, led by the state Solicitor-General, Mrs. Abiola Adewemimo, presented irrefutable evidence, including eyewitness accounts and confessions from the accused.
The case stemmed from an incident in the year 2010, when the convicts forcefully broke into the home of Mr. Balogun Tope, a police officer, armed with a cutlass and a dane gun. They carted away valuables, including livestock, and were apprehended following their involvement in similar robberies. The evidence showed a clear pattern of criminal behaviour, including their admission to robbing another individual, Alhaja Umani Oyewo, from whom they stole broilers, eggs, and kegs of vegetable oil.
Justice Jide Falola of the Osun State High Court, sitting in Okuku, delivered a judgment grounded in the law. The convicts were found guilty of conspiracy, robbery, and stealing, with sentences proportionate to the gravity of their crimes, death by hanging for conspiracy, in accordance with Section 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearm (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Life imprisonment for robbery. Three years’ imprisonment for stealing.
The judge also showed humanity in his judgment, recommending that the governor may consider commuting the death sentence to a ten-year prison term, given the convicts’ ages and circumstances. This reflects a balanced application of the law, tempered with empathy, a situation we now witnessed been put into play by the Osun State government.
It is however disheartening to see attempts to trivialize this case by focusing solely on the theft of a fowl, ignoring the armed robbery charges and the overwhelming evidence presented in court. Such distortions risk misleading the public and eroding confidence in the judiciary. It is important for citizens to understand that the judiciary operates based on evidence and established legal frameworks, not emotion or public sentiment.
To those who care to know, the judiciary system in Nigeria cutting across the 36 sates and federal capital territory is a pillar of democracy, tasked with delivering justice impartially and without bias. So in the case of Osun State, Justice Falola’s handling of the case in question reflects the professionalism and integrity that underpin the judiciary’s work. The prerogative of mercy, if exercised, is not a repudiation of the court’s judgment but a constitutional tool for tempering justice with clemency.
Members of the public are urged to seek facts and reject narratives designed to undermine the judiciary. Trust in this institution is essential for maintaining law, order, and justice in society. Let us protect the integrity of the judiciary and support its critical role in safeguarding our democracy.
