By Samuel Oyandogha The most celebrated court case in Yenagoa and perhaps in all of Bayelsa State this year has been the ongoing trial of Yunusa Dahiru, alias Yellow, the alleged abductor of 14 years old Ese Oruru. Yunusa, who was arraigned on March 8, before the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, by the Nigerian police prosecution team led by Kenneth Dika from the Force Headquarters, after being taken from Kano to the State on a five count charge of criminal abduction, illicit sex, sexual exploitation and unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor could have been on bail and out of the Okaka Prison wall but for his inability to perfect the condition ordered by the court. The charge against the defendant read: “That you, Yunusa Dahiru, a male, resident in Opolo-Epie area of Yenagoa in Bayelsa State, conspired with the duo of Dankano Mohammed and Mallam Alhassan, between August 2015 and February, 2016, to commit an offence of abduction and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 27(a) of the Trafficking in Persons (prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.” Count two: That you, Yunusa Dahiru, abducted Ese Oruru by means of coercion, transported and harboured her in Kano State and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13(2)(b) of the Trafficking in Persons (prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.” Count three: “That you, Yunusa Dahiru, induced Ese Oruru by the use of deception and coercion to go with you from Yenagoa to Kano State with intent that she be forced or seduced into illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 15(a) of the Trafficking in Persons (prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.” Count four: “That you, Yunusa Dahiru, procured Ese Oruru and subjected her to sexual exploitation in Kano State and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 16(1) of the Trafficking in Persons (prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.” Count five: “That you, Yinusa Dahiru, had unlawful carnal knowledge of Ese Oruru without her consent and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 357 of the criminal code Act and punishable under section 358 of the Criminal code ACT, Cap. C.38 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.” Ese-Oruru He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge read to him in Pidgin English. Justice H. A Nganjiwa, after listening to the prosecuting counsel, Kenneth Dika and Kayode Olaosebikan, counsel to the defendant, on the agreed adjournment date of March 14, informed the court that the priority of the court was the hearing of the case and other motions that may be filed by the counsel. The court ordered the remand of the defendant in police custody and adjourned till March 14, to hear the bail application. Prosecution seeks secret court trial of Yunusa At the resumed hearing, the prosecuting counsel, Kenneth Dika, asked the presiding judge, Justice Nganjiwa, to approve a secret trial as the victim, Ese Oruru, was a minor and deserved the protection of the court. He further objected to the application for bail made by the defence team led by Olaos ebikan arguing that if the defendant is granted bail, it would be difficult to get him back to face the trial. In a 10 paragraphs counter affidavit deposed to by Police Inspector, Debo Waheed, the prosecution averred that it took the police six months rigorous search before Yunusa was apprehended, arguing that if the defendant is granted bail, he would not come back, especially as he is not resident within the jurisdiction. But the defence counsel, opposed the application for secret trial by the prosecuting counsel, arguing that the case is already in the public domain and that there is no need for a secret trial. “Ordinarily the law allows for a secret trial, but you must give the court reasons. Our own contention is that the matter is already in the public domain. The prosecution created a media nightmare for the girl on their own. They dug the pit, they should wallow in it. Even if the court allows it, the media cannot be excluded from the trial, but our own contention is that what they are seeking to prevent has already been created by them from the onset before the trial,” he said. File: Yunusa Arraigned In Court Over Ese Oruru's Abduction : March 08, 2016. In a seven paragraphs affidavit in support of the bail application de posed to by Ayodeji Max well, the defence counsel cited sections 158 and 168 of Administration of Crimi nal Justice, and section 36 of the 1999 constitution as amended and urged the court to grant the defendant bail. The judge after listening to arguments, by both counsel, adjourned the case to March 21 and ordered that Yunusa should be remanded in prison custody until when ruling would be delivered on his bail application. Court grants Yunusa bail On March 21, Justice Nganjiwa, granted Yunusa bail, in the sum of N3million with two sureties in like sum, and ordered that he should be remanded in prison custody pending when he is able to perfect his bail conditions and further adjourned the case to April 19 for hearing of the application for secret trial filed by the prosecution. The judge ordered that the defence counsel must produce the defendant in court for trial, whenever the case comes up, adding that one of the sureties must be a renowned title holder in the community and the other a public servant of level 12 and above. Justice Nganjiwa said that both sureties must be resident in Bayelsa State and must submit their three years tax clearance certificates, while the public servant must also submit letter of first appointment and last promotion. Why we are unable to secure Yunusa on bail – Lawyer Though the defence counsel, Mr. Olaosebikan, was grateful to the court over the ruling, the defendant is yet to leave Okaka Prison, after he was granted bail, as he has not been able to meet the bail conditions. According to the defence counsel, the publicity the case generated and the bail condition that the sureties must be resident in the jurisdiction of the court is scaring away individuals who would have serve as sureties. He nonetheless assured that they will follow the legal processes to secure the bail. “The conditions the court gave us that all the sureties must be resident here, and no thanks to you the media guys, everybody here is against our client, when we get somebody and we are perfecting the bail and once you say it is for Yunusa Dahiru, they would say, that boy that kidnapped our daughter?. That is the problem we are facing, I think there are legal procedures to follow and we will come back to court and make the necessary application,” he said.

k

Lai lai the trial must not be conducted in secret, not after the parents and media had publicly tried judged and sentenced him before hand; the case must continue in the open so that the same media responsible for some distortion of the events would equally have to relay the real story as the truth emerges from this unfortunate saga.