From Barrister Adam Bashir.
After listening to Sa'adatu's husband, Usman, I am now even more convinced that the allegation of enticing a married woman cannot stand on the evidence currently in the public domain.
The offence is not established merely because a man exchanged messages with a married woman. The law requires proof that the accused knowingly enticed a woman he knew to be married with the intention of engaging in illicit sexual intercourse or another immoral act.
Against that legal threshold, telling a woman, "You are beautiful, and I would love to meet you in person someday," falls far short of proving criminal enticement. Even the husband himself dismissed any suggestion that apart from this conversation, there was no other conversation that at pointed to an intention to have sex or engage in any immoral conduct.
If the chats cannot establish that intention, and the alleged conversation inside the vehicle cannot establish it either, then what evidence does? Equally, the claim that the supervisor asked them to drive further so he could retrieve something, without more, does not reasonably support an inference that he intended to commit an illicit act.
However, the same interview raises serious questions about the husband's own conduct.
He admitted that he physically restrained the lecturer and instructed his wife to scream for help so that the lecturer would not escape. He also admitted that he never made a formal report to the police before confronting him. Instead, he chose to act on his own without involving law enforcement or even notifying the security personnel at the gate.
Whether he personally assaulted the lecturer is a matter for investigation. But his admitting restraining the lecturer and instructing his wife to call for help established that he aided, encouraged, or facilitated the assault, the law on aiding and abetting could make him and any other participants criminally liable for the resulting injuries. If his intention is to proved presence of the lecturer at the scene, digital footprint will do that.
Another issue that deserves attention is the alleged handwritten note. We have repeatedly been told that it contains evidence of the supposed enticement, yet its contents have not been made public. The only image circulating merely shows the lecturer writing, without revealing what was actually written. That naturally invites questions about the strength of the evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending the lecturer. In my view, he failed to maintain the level of professional judgment and fiduciary responsibility expected of someone in his position. A lecturer ought to avoid situations capable of creating suspicion or undermining public confidence.
But professional indiscretion should not be confused with criminal liability. The law punishes proven offences, not public outrage or moral assumptions.
If the husband genuinely believed an offence had been committed, the lawful course of action was to report the matter to the police and allow the law to take its course—not to create circumstances that culminated in mob action.
Interestingly, his later decision to seek reconciliation speaks volumes. It suggests that, with the benefit of hindsight, he may have realised that the situation should never have been allowed to spiral into violence.
The rule of law demands that we separate emotion from evidence, suspicion from proof, and public opinion from the legal ingredients of an offence.
Photo credit: Lumana Radio International
Yakubu Musa Fagage
Jaafar Jaafar.
@__ABEE__ Ni wlhi at first da naga abin I thought ma there are concrete evidences ne and he was warned so many times ashe duk abin ma kame kame ne .I want them to learn in a very hard way musamman matar marar kamun kai
@SVrolok My supervisor late night voice call yake kira he didn’t care whether you are married or not. Infact idan ya ce aje kawai zama yake yayi ta baka labarin yaje kasar waje. Baya saka wasu kaya sai shadda gezner and, things off point dai. I reported and he was changed as my supervisor