The summary of the fact of the case is that, Iniubong Umoren, a 26 year-old graduate of Philosophy, University of Uyo, South South Nigeria, while awaiting mobilization for National Youth Service, NYSC, had put up an advertisement with her curriculum vitae on a website called Jiji, stating her desire for a job.
Upon seeing the advert, the accused, Uduak Frank Akpan, 20 year-old undergraduate reached out to Iniubong, claiming he was a Manager of an Integrated Farm in Nung Ikono Obio, Uruan Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State, with a vacancy for the post of a Secretary.
On the date of the incident, 29th April, 2021, Uduak is said to have invited Iniubong Umoren for an interview and the interview location turned out to be the compound of his father in Nung Ikono Obio. On reaching there, Uduak was said to have opened up to Iniubong Umoren that the advertized job was non-existent.
On realizing that she had gotten herself into a trap, the job seeker sought to leave, but Uduak prevented her. He threatened, assaulted, raped, murdered and buried Iniubong in a hurriedly excavated shallow grave in his father’s compound.
In his quest to escape, Uduak travelled to Calabar, the house of his elder sister, Bassey Anwan with the phone and bag of the slain Iniubong Umoren, a day after the incident, 30th April, 2021.
Uduak Frank Akpan was arrested and charged for rape which is punishable under Section 367 of the Criminal Code, Cap 38 Vol. 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2020 and murder under Section 326 (1) of the same Law.
I will analyse the particulars of the offense of r-ape in a separate write-up later.
MUR-DER
The law is that, to secure a conviction for the offense of murder, the three ingredients must be established:
1. That the deceased died.
2. That the death was caused by the accused.
3. That the act of the accused was intentional.
THAT INIUBONG UMOREN DIED
Like the Court presided over by Justice Bassey Nkanang held in its judgment “The identification of the corpse of Iniubong Umoren at the mortuary by her elder sister, Ifiok Umoren, who testified as PW 4 and the photographs of the exhumed body of Iniubong Umoren which was tendered and marked as an exhibit, were sufficient for this purpose.”
Other pieces of evidence that portray that indeed, Iniubong Umoren is dead were; the post mortem form/report, the video depicting the exhumation of the corpse and the three confessional statements of Uduak Frank Akpan, all admitted and marked as exhibits.
THAT THE DEATH WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCUSED
Uduak Frank Akpan in his confessional statement made at the Anti-Kidnapping Unit of Nigeria Police, Akwa Ibom State Command’s Headquarters on 30th April, 2021, state as follows:
“I used stabilizer to hit her and she bled, collapsed and died. I dragged her corpse and buried her by the side of our bush mango tree. I did all these things all by myself.”
Same day, at the State Criminal Intelligence and Investigation Department of Nigeria Police, Uyo, Uduak Frank Akpan also made confessional statement as follows:
“I picked same stabilizer she used to hit me to hit her head, then I reached out for a part of a box iron and hit her abdomen, she then started to bleed and gasp for breath. I became scared and started panicking. After some minutes, I did not hear her breath again. She became lifeless and I dragged her body outside the house in a blanket and put her in a grave I dug and I covered it”.
On 10th April, 2021, at the Department of State Security, DSS, Uduak Frank Akpan, in his extrajudicial confessional statement personally written by him, also state as follows:
“I reached out for a stabilizer and hit her head, I used the pressing iron to hit her abdomen, I hit her head again, then she began screaming, when I heard screaming, I took her jeans trousers and tied her neck, I used another cloth to tie her mouth and hit her again. She was bleeding and I became confused, it was too late to make any change. I strangled her with the jeans trousers I already tied on her neck. Then, she became lifeless.”
From the above, one significant element of the three confessional statements is that though, the statements were made in separate dates, the three maintained manifest uniformity in all aspects.
It is also important to point out that, the unimpeached testimonies of PW1, Surveyor Iniobong Ekpenyong, the cousin of the accused and Chairman of Uruan Local Government, the place of origin of the accused and PW 2, Kufre Effiong, another cousin of Uduak Frank Akpan, both add up to the killing of Iniubong Umoren on the accused.
Surveyor Ekpenyong in his evidence had narrated how on 30th April, 2021 in his house at Ewet Housing Estate, Uyo, Uduak Frank Akpan confessed to the killing of Iniubong Umoren.
Furthermore, the testimonies of PW 3, Uduak Joseph Umoh, a friend of Iniubong Umoren and PW 4, Ifiok Ephraim Umoren, a sister to the deceased and even contents of the three confessional statements of Uduak Frank Akpan, all state that Iniubong Umoren was hale and hearty before the time of her death, which the accused put at 5:30pm on 29th April, 2021.
Just like the Court noted, on the day of the incident, Iniubong Umoren personally transported herself from Uyo to the house of the father of Uduak Frank Akpan by various means, including taxis, buses and motorcycle.
Now the law is that if a person who is healthy and fit, dies shortly after by an act, the death thereof is usually attributed to that act.
In this case, Iniubong Umoren who was strong and sound in health, being dead by the act of Uduak Frank Akpan, could logically be said to have caused the death of Iniubong Umoren. Essien vs State (1984).
THAT THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED WAS INTENTIONAL
Justice Bassey Nkanang held that “the detailed narration by Uduak Frank Akpan of his several acts of assault on Iniubong Umoren, the objects deployed by him and the delicate parts of the deceased body are pointers to the existence of intention and knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm or death was its probable consequence.”
Let me reproduce the accused confessional statement made to the Department of State Security, DSS.
“I reached out for a stabilizer and hit her head, I used the pressing iron to hit her abdomen, I hit her head again, then she began screaming, when I heard screaming, I took her jeans trousers and tied her neck, I used another cloth to tie her mouth and hit her again. She was bleeding and I became confused, it was too late to make any change. I strangled her with the jeans trousers I already tied on her neck. Then, she became lifeless.”
From the above, it is important to note the following:
*The nature of the weapon (stabilizer, pressing iron) resorted to by the accused person in ventilating his rage at the victim were clear pointers that indeed, Uduak Frank Akpan, indeed aimed at or intended killing Iniubong Umoren.
*The part of the body (head and neck) which was brutalized by the weapon and
*The extent of the proximity of the victim with weapon used by the accused.
DEFENSE
1. SELF DEFENSE:
The accused raised the defense of self defense and the Court in the judgment held that “for the defense of self defense to avail a defendant, there must be clear and unambiguous evidence before the Court, that the victim was attacking or about to attack the defendant in a manner that grievous hurt or death was possible and had to defend himself; that the self defense was instantaneous or contemporaneous with the threatened attack and that the mode of self defense was not greater or disproportionate with the threatened attack”.
The Court dismissed the defense of self defense of the accused person “as the threat posed to him by the deceased, if believed, was disproportionate with the force he used in repelling it and the necessity of the occasion did not demand such self defense.”
After self defense, came a hint by Uduak Frank Akpan of having a medical condition called schizophrenia claiming he was an outpatient of the Mental Department at the University of Uyo Teaching Hospital.
Again, the Court dismissed the claim. Justice Bassey Nkanang noted that “in the course of trial and during an appraisal of the confessional statements of the accused, he does not, in the slightest manner, appear as a person manifesting any of the symptoms of schizophrenia.”
In the words of Justice Nkanang “Indeed, the 1st defendant strikes me as an EXCEPTIONAL BRILLIANT YOUNG PERSON who is well coordinated in thought, speech and action with a striking capacity to recollect minute details of events and transactions he has been involved in.”
“My take therefore on the half hearted defense of the lack of mental capacity is that the 1st defendant possessed the requisite mental capacity to fully understand what he was into as at the time of the commission of the offenses alleged against him.”
“Afterall, his decision to conceal the traces of his crime by digging up a grave of about three feet deep, dragging the body of the victim to the grave, covering the body with a blanket, covering up the grave, returning to clean up the locus criminis and thereafter, escaping to Calabar in Cross River State through a dangerous boat ride are clear pointers to the existence of a stable mental state in the 1st defendants.” Justice Bassey Nkanang held.
The third defense by the accused person was the defense of alibi, a Latin word meaning “elsewhere” It also means the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offense was committed.
On that ground, the Court held that “the feeble attempt by the 1st defendant to push forward and rely on the defense of alibi is clearly made in bad faith as an afterthought and is deemed to fail and it accordingly fails”.
JUDGEMENT
On 4th August, 2022, the Court sentenced Uduak Frank Akpan to death by hanging for murder.
Credit: Harrison Essien is NUJ Judiciary Correspondent of the Year who followed up the case from the time of arrest to the judgement day.
