Kano Court Refuses Bail for Three Defendants in Armed Robbery, Kidnapping Case
The defendants Umar Abdullahi, Shafi’u Adamu, Jamilu Akilu Kafada Kwata, and Mallam Muammiru Warawa are facing a four-count charge bordering on conspiracy, armed robbery, kidnapping, and attempted culpable homicide. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
According to the prosecution counsel, Barrister Lamido Abba Soron Dinki, the defendants were alleged to have committed the offences on or about June 4, 2021, at about 12:00 a.m. in Saunar Kawaji Quarters, Gezawa LGA, within the Kano Judicial Division.
On the first count, the defendants were accused of conspiring to commit armed robbery, kidnapping, and attempted culpable homicide, an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.
On the second count, they were alleged to have abducted one Aisha at about 1:00 a.m. on the same date and detained her in an uncompleted building for six days. The prosecution further alleged that she was released after a ransom of ₦5 million was paid by her family, contrary to Section 273 of the Penal Code Law of Kano State.
In the third count, the defendants were said to have, while armed with AK-47 rifles, robbed one Alhaji Bello Abdullahi and members of his family of two Itel GSM mobile phones, an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.
The fourth count alleged that the defendants shot one Magaji Usman in the lap during the attack, under circumstances that would have amounted to culpable homicide punishable with death had death resulted, contrary to Section 229 of the Penal Code.
During the proceedings, counsel to the defendants Ibrahim Umar, A.Y. Adamu, and Khalid Muhd filed applications urging the court to grant bail to their clients. They argued that bail is at the discretion of the court and that the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The defence also submitted that the defendants had been in custody since 2021, 2023, and 2024 respectively, and that the trial only commenced in 2024 after the charge was filed. They urged the court to grant bail on the grounds of prolonged detention, citing Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
In her ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Maryam Ahmad Sabo, said she had reviewed the applications and written addresses filed before the court. She noted that the issue for determination was whether sufficient grounds had been placed before the court to warrant the exercise of its discretion in favour of the defendants.
Justice Sabo held that although attempted culpable homicide is not a capital offence, it remains a serious offence when considered alongside allegations of armed robbery and kidnapping.
She further stated that in considering bail applications, the court must take into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the likelihood of the defendants attending trial.
According to her, granting bail at this stage would not serve the interest of justice given the seriousness of the charges.
“The court, when exercising its discretion in granting bail, must consider the seriousness, voluminous nature, and severity of the offence. Although not capital, I am of the view that granting bail at this stage may not serve the interest of justice. I find that the applications of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants have not placed sufficient materials to warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion in their favour. In the circumstances, the applications for bail filed by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants are hereby refused,” she ruled.
The court, however, upheld an earlier order granting bail to the 4th defendant on health grounds.
