On Wednesday, an Enugu State High Court sentenced Chiamaka Ifezue, prime suspect in the murder of Ijeoma Nneke, an Enugu-based make-up artist, to death by hanging.
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 Department of Public Prosecution, 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.
When Miss Ifezue opened her defence on the 11th of January, 2023, pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against her and told the court that she wasn’t the one that invited late Ijeoma for the make up job.
“I wasn’t the one that invited her for the job, my friend, Nkiru did but didn’t show up for the job and is nowhere to be found since then till date,” miss Ifezue said during cross-examination by the prosecutor.
Asked why she was the one that made the arrangement for the taxi that brought late Ijeoma, the suspect said she never made any arrangement of such, rather, it was her friend, Nkiru that made the arrangements that she only spoke to a taxi driver and sent her friend’s (Nkiru) number to the taxi driver.
The prosecutor however countered her claim with her (Ifezue’s) statement in Exhibit E line 7-8 in which she said she got a taxi driver and showed him (the taxi driver) where to drop late ijeoma.
Miss Ifezue while maintaining her position that she never invited the deceased for the job said her friend who was going for a dinner party needed her service and she knows nothing about the dinner party her friend who wanted to use her house to do the make-up wanted to go to.
The prosecutor went further to ask the accused why she gave the taxi driver a 9mobile phone number 08096349552 to call when she gets to her house, Miss Ifezue said the number belongs to her Friend Nkiru and it was given to the driver for both of them to communicate.
The prosecutor went on to ask the accused why she was the one that paid for the taxi fare through her houseboy; Matthew Francis, Miss Ifezue said her friend called her that the makeup artist was at the gate and that she should help her to pay the fare.
Asked what the makeup bag of the victim was doing in her house, she said that the bag belongs to her (Miss Ifezue) and she can identify all the items in the box because it belongs to her. She further stated that every woman has a makeup bag and she has one too.
But her argument about a makeup bag was punctured by the prosecutor who referred her to a section of the statement she made to the police which was admitted by the court as Exhibit ‘E’. In the statement, she said she put the deceased makeup bag in the trunk of her (Miss Ifezue) car.
The Prosecuting counsel told the court that the suspect through her counsel never objected to the ownership of the makeup bag when it was admitted as an exhibit, and described her current position as an afterthought.
On the possible reason for the crime (which is that the deceased snatched the accused boyfriend from her), Miss Ifezue admitted to taking a blood oath with the guy in question; Chidiebere Okpara but it’s not true that the guy broke up with her because she was the one that called off the relationship and wasn’t aware if he went into a new relationship because she wasn’t in constant communication with him.
“It’s true that we took blood oath, which Chidiebere initiated but its not true that he broke up with me, I broke up with him and I wasn’t aware he was in any relationship because I wasn’t in constant communication with him.”
The prosecutor also queried the suspect on using her houseboy to resister a lot of simcards including the one used in arranging the make up job, but she denied same insisting that her houseboy only registered her airtel line for her which she uses in her mifi and has never used it for making of calls.
However, in a judgment that lasted for two hours, the presiding judge, Justice Kenneth Okpe, found the accused guilty of killing the victim, noting that it resolved the issue against the defendant by the evidence placed before the court.
Okpe said that the court is unable to see the evidence that would have been against the prosecution’s case if the body of the deceased was exhumed and autopsy conducted.
“I, therefore hold that the argument and submission in that regard was misconceived.
“In the whole, I hold that the prosecution by cogent and credible evidence proved the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt and as required by law. Accordingly, I hereby find the defendant guilty of the offence of murder.
“The defendant was in Count 2, charged under Section 274(1) of the Criminal Code Law of Enugu State Cap. 30, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004, which prescribed death sentences as punishment.
“This court cannot, therefore, notwithstanding the plea for mercy, return a lower sentence. In Lucky v. State (2016) LPELR-40541 the Supreme Court warned that where statute has prescribed mandatory sentences, the trial court will lack the power to exercise discretion. It must return the prescribed punishment.
“But before I do that, let me state that this defendant, though having a gentle mien, has a heart of steel. She carried on through the trial with a sense of fulfillment that the mission was accomplished and that her freedom was a matter of time.
“There was no remorse shown from the beginning of trial till judgment day. Not even on the day the then 2nd defendant was discharged on the application of no case to answer did she feel bad.
“Of course, her counsel also did not help matters that day with their boast in open court, to immediately appeal against the ruling as it affected the defendant, shortly after the ruling was delivered. The main appeal and application to the governor for pardon are options now available to the defendant.
“Meanwhile, I hereby sentence the defendant, Ifezue Chiamaka, to death by hanging until she is dead. May God have mercy on her soul.”
Counsels for the defendant, Mr. Chuma Oguejiofor and N. Aro, had pleaded with the court to temper justice with mercy, particularly as the defendant is a young person and a first offender.
However, counsels for the state led by the, agreed that there was no evidence of previous conviction against the defendant but reminded the court that in the circumstance of the case that the sentence is mandatory.
