A State High Court sitting in Enugu, has discharged the second defendant (Emeka Ifezue) in the murder of Miss Ijeoma Nneke, a makeup artist based in Enugu.
The make-up artist was declared missing on the 11th of November, 2020 after she went for a home service in a part of the state. After about three days, a body suspected to be that of late Ijeoma was discovered at Independence Layout, Enugu.
Following investigations, the police arrested two siblings, Ifezue Chiamaka and her brother, Ifezue Emeka from Urualla, Ideato North local government in Imo State as suspects in the alleged murder the 27-year-old Make-up artist.
The evidences provided by the prosecution counsel, Barrister Chigbo C.C from DPP, were: a key of Toyote Matrix which one of the witnesses said was used by the suspects to move the body of the victim away from their compound, 5Pcs of 20 British Pounds, iPhone 7 with MTN SIM card, iPhone, Blackberry phone, 9 mobile SIM card, Black unnamed phone, MTN SIM Pack and the make up tools which allegedly belongs to the victim.
Also tendered as evidence by the prosecutor are WhatsApp messages between the victim and her boyfriend where she was was explaining to him the location she was directed for a make up job and the description matches the house of the suspects and SMS messages between the late Ijeoma and her friend, Prisca where she (the victim) was telling her friend that she’s no longer comfortable where she was.
However, in a ruling dated 28th July, 2022, Justice Kenneth I. Okpe held that the prosecutor didn’t provide sufficient evidence to support any case of conspiracy by the siblings but insisted the first defendant (Ifezue Chiamaka) has a case to answer.
“This Court will therefore not impute criminal liability of any sort on the 2nd defendant, for the use of his car by his sister, in dropping the deceased even if he allowed it. This Court will also not impute criminal liability on the 2nd defendant for offering water to the deceased particularly as there is evidence that the deceased, at a point in their house, needed assistance.”
Justice Okpe maintained that; “There is no evidence that the 2nd defendant helped in taking the deceased away from their house. The PW1 did not say he saw the 2nd defendant in the car when the 1st defendant drove out with the deceased. In the statements the 2nd defendant made to the police on the 17/11/2020 and 18/11/2020 which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits “D” and “H” respectively, the 2nd stated that when he saw the condition of the deceased, he asked the 1st defendant to contact whoever had need for her services or her boyfriend to come take her away as he was not comfortable with her condition.
“That the 2nd defendant did not report the matter immediately to the police is not enough to impute criminal liability on him. At that early stage, it was not clear to most of them what had happened to the deceased. Even when the police was involved and they had first contact with the 1st defendant, the police did not immediately put her under arrest and the reason is obvious: the information on the deceased was still scanty. It took the tracking of the deceased telephone number by the police and linking calls from her phone to that of the 1st defendant for the police to narrow down their investigation on her. Also, at that stage, it was still case of a missing person. It took the appearance of the alleged body of the deceased on the social media for the police to refocus their investigation on a deceased person. I will not say more than this now.
“But, very importantly, there is evidence by the PW4, the boy friend of the deceased, that when he got to the house of the defendants, on invitation by the 2nd defendant, that he met the 2nd defendant beating the 1st defendant to say what she knew about the deceased then a suspected missing person. This certainly is not consistent with the allegation of conspiracy. The evidence before this Court is that the 2nd defendant told the 1st defendant to get whoever invited the deceased to come take her away from their house and later the 2nd defendant was seen beating the 1st defendant to say what she knew about the deceased. Where then is the element of the offence of conspiracy? Where 1s the evidence of the 1st and 2nd defendants agreeing to do anything wrongful in law? In OBlAKOR V. STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 774) 612 628-629 the Supreme Court discussed the nature of the offence of conspiracy as an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. This Court cannot find any such agreement between the 1st and 2nd defendants.
“This Court is therefore unable to find that piece of evidence that if believed, this Court could rely on to convict the 2nd defendant.
“I therefore agree with counsel for the defendants that no case has been made out against the 2nd defendant sufficient to require his being called upon to defend himself and accordingly, the no case submission made on his behalf is hereby upheld and the 2nd defendant, Mr. Chukwuemeka Ifezue, is hereby discharged.
“Meanwhile, the no case submission made on behalf of the 1st defendant is hereby refused and she is now called upon to enter her defence.”
When the matter was called up today, the defence pleaded for more time, arguing that they’re not ready to enter defence for the first defendant.
The case thereafter, adjourned to 30th November, 2022 for the commencement of defence.
