Nigeria: Update on the cases of Hajara Ibrahim and Dasso Adamu
Source:
BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights More information about the cases of two women sentenced to death by stoning in Bauchi.
Both women have both appealed against the judgment. BAOBAB For Women’s Human Rights is providing legal representation for the two women.
Hajara Ibrahim: This matter shall be coming up for mention at the Upper Sharia Court Dass for mention on the 27th of October 2004. We shall keep you informed of the grounds of appeal when filed.
Dasso Adamu: This matter came up on the 20th of October 2004 for mention. Dasso was brought to court from the prison where she had been incarcerated for purposes of appearing in court. BAOBAB retained the law firm of B. Abdulllahi & Co to represent Dasso in this matter after obtaining her consent so to do. Barrister Abdulkadir Suleiman applied for bail orally which was granted. A relative of Dasso who was present in court stood as her surety. Also counsel applied orally to add further grounds of appeal, this was granted.
Dasso had filed one ground of appeal before now which was; that she was not satisfied with the judgment of the lower court, Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted her. This is based on the ground that her former, husband Mohammed Naji was the one that impregnated her and that the court did not make a proper finding but only relied on her purported confession of fornication. This being the case she is not satisfied with the courts decision. More grounds of appeal shall be filed.
This left a window of opportunity for Barrister Sulieman to apply orally for further grounds of appeal, which includes:
(1) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted Dasso Adamu without requisite legal requirements.
(2) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong when the court did not make a founding as to whether the pregnancy belonged to her husband Mohammed Naji.
(3) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted Dasso when the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
(4) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong when it convicted Dasso when there was no case of adultery filed against her by anybody.
Both cases have been further adjourned for mention and argument of substantive appeal on the 27th October 2004 and 3rd November 2004 respectively.
BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights
Dasso Adamu: This matter came up on the 20th of October 2004 for mention. Dasso was brought to court from the prison where she had been incarcerated for purposes of appearing in court. BAOBAB retained the law firm of B. Abdulllahi & Co to represent Dasso in this matter after obtaining her consent so to do. Barrister Abdulkadir Suleiman applied for bail orally which was granted. A relative of Dasso who was present in court stood as her surety. Also counsel applied orally to add further grounds of appeal, this was granted.
Dasso had filed one ground of appeal before now which was; that she was not satisfied with the judgment of the lower court, Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted her. This is based on the ground that her former, husband Mohammed Naji was the one that impregnated her and that the court did not make a proper finding but only relied on her purported confession of fornication. This being the case she is not satisfied with the courts decision. More grounds of appeal shall be filed.
This left a window of opportunity for Barrister Sulieman to apply orally for further grounds of appeal, which includes:
(1) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted Dasso Adamu without requisite legal requirements.
(2) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong when the court did not make a founding as to whether the pregnancy belonged to her husband Mohammed Naji.
(3) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong to have convicted Dasso when the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
(4) That the Agurmaji Lower Sharia Court was wrong when it convicted Dasso when there was no case of adultery filed against her by anybody.
Both cases have been further adjourned for mention and argument of substantive appeal on the 27th October 2004 and 3rd November 2004 respectively.
BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights
