By TEMITOPE MESEWONRUN
The heartbreaking events of December 18, 2024, at Islamic High School, Bashorun, Ibadan, resulted in the tragic deaths of 35 children and injuries to many others. These incidents have ignited critical legal and societal questions surrounding criminal liability, the responsibilities of event organizers, and the delicate balance between charitable intentions and public safety.
In response, the Commissioner of Police, Oyo State, has charged Naomi Silekunola Ogunwusi, Alh. Oriyomi Hamzat, Fasasi Abdullahi Babatunde, and others now at large with multiple offences. This analysis delves into the legal charges, their implications, and the broader societal discourse, emphasizing the constitutional rights of the accused.
The charges explained
Count I: Conspiracy to Commit a Felony – Charged under Section 324 of the Criminal Code, Oyo State. This charge alleges that the defendants conspired to commit a serious crime.
Legal Burden: The prosecution must prove a “meeting of the minds” among the accused to commit the alleged act.
Critical Question: Was there a deliberate plan among the accused to engage in actions leading to the offences, or was it a case of concurrent negligence?
Count II: Unlawful Acceleration of Death – Charged under Section 311, punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. The defendants are accused of actions or omissions that unlawfully caused the deaths of Musiliu Sofiat and 34 others, mostly children.
Legal Burden: The prosecution must establish a causal link between the defendants’ actions or omissions and the tragic deaths, demonstrating recklessness to the point of unlawfulness.
Further Questions: Did the accused owe a duty of care to the attendees? Was there a breach of that duty? Most importantly, was there a direct causation of the deaths?
READ ALSO: Police rescue seven-year-old girl in Ogun
Count III: Conspiracy to Commit Negligent Acts Causing Harm – Charged under Section 517 of the Criminal Code. This unusual charge combines conspiracy with negligence, alleging that the failure to act with due care resulted in harm.
Legal Burden: The prosecution must prove the defendants owed a duty of care, breached it, and caused harm as a direct result.
Grave Concern: Can parties conspire to be negligent? Conspiracy typically requires intent, whereas negligence by definition is unintentional.
Count IV: Omission to Provide Adequate Security/Medical Facilities – The defendants are accused of failing to take reasonable precautions, such as providing adequate security and medical facilities, to prevent harm.
As a society, we must balance justice for the victims with fairness for the accused, ensuring the ultimate goal of the law, truth and justice is achieved.
Legal Burden: The prosecution must demonstrate that the omission was significant enough to constitute criminal negligence. They must establish:
- A legal duty to provide such facilities.
- The standard of care expected.
- A breach of that standard.
Legal and Public Perspectives
- The Presumption of Innocence: Under Nigerian law, every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This constitutional safeguard prevents undue prejudice and ensures a fair trial for the accused.
- Bail as a Constitutional Right: Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees personal liberty and the right to bail, ensuring the accused can prepare their defence without undue hardship. However, bail is granted based on:
* The severity of the offence.
* The likelihood of the accused fleeing.
* Potential interference with the investigation.
- The Role of Remand: Remand is not a punishment but an interim measure to ensure the accused are available for trial. It should not be misconstrued as a determination of guilt.
Negligence in Event Organization
This case underscores the importance of accountability in event planning. The failure to provide adequate safety measures, especially for children, demands urgent attention. However, the legal process must differentiate between criminal negligence and unfortunate accidents.
Public Tension and Emotional Reactions
Given the scale of the tragedy, public emotions are understandably high. It is crucial for the legal process to proceed objectively, ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done. Public discourse should focus on constructive solutions, such as stricter regulations for public events, rather than premature judgments.
The Path Forward
- For the Accused: The defendants should:
* Engage experienced legal counsel.
* Prepare a defence focusing on the absence of intent and efforts made to ensure safety.
* Demonstrate cooperation with the investigation.
- For the Public: The public must:
* Respect the judicial process and avoid prejudging the case.
* Advocate for systemic reforms to prevent future tragedies.
- For Policymakers: This case highlights the need for:
* Regulatory frameworks for public event organizers.
* Regular inspections of venues to ensure compliance with safety standards.
Conclusion
The remand of the accused is not the end of justice but a step toward ensuring due process. While the law takes its course, this tragedy serves as a wake-up call to prioritize safety and accountability in public gatherings.
As a society, we must balance justice for the victims with fairness for the accused, ensuring the ultimate goal of the law, truth and justice is achieved.
*Mesewonrun is a legal practitioner.
