Maryam Sanda has approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, praying it to set aside the verdict of the FCT High Court which convicted her for killing her husband.
She was sentenced to death by hanging last month by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
In her appeal against the death sentence, the convict claimed that the trial judge was tainted by bias and prejudices leading to her denial of right to fair hearing and consequent conviction.
She averred that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence despite the reasonable doubt created by evidence of witnesses, lack of confessional statement, absence of murder weapon, lack of corroboration of evidence by two witnesses and lack of autopsy report to determine the true cause of her husband’s death.
Read Also: Court strikes out case against new Kano emirs
In the notice of appeal predicated on 20 grounds filed by her counsel, Rickey Tarfa, SAN, Maryam Sanda said the judgment of the trial court was completely “a miscarriage of justice.”
She said that the failure of the trial judge to rule on her preliminary objection challenging the charge preferred against her and the jurisdiction of the court as evidence of bias is a denial of her right to fair hearing as constitutionally guaranteed.
In ground 2, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred and misdirected himself by usurping the role of the police when he assumed the duty of an Investigating Police Officer, IPO.
Read Also: Alleged Conviction: Court dismisses suit challenging eligibility of Omo-Agege
The appellant submitted that “the constitutional duty of a trial court is to assess the credible evidence before it and reach a decision based on its assessment.
In ground 5, the appellant submitted that there is no evidence before the trial judge and that the defendant was the last person who saw the deceased alive, since prosecution witness in his evidence before the trial judge stated that he was called by the deceased, he saw the deceased and asked the deceased what the problem was.
She added that the statement of Sadiya Aminu, tendered before the trial court (who was initially charged as 4th defendant in the amended charge) also confirmed that the deceased was alive though injured when she saw him.
Consequently, she prayed the Court of Appeal to allow her appeal, set aside her conviction and sentence imposed by Justice Halilu and acquit her.
