By G9ija

Aminu, son of Special Adviser to Sokoto Governor Aminu Tambuwal on Social Investment, Alhaji Hayatu Tafida and three others have been arraigned by the Police for alleged rape, criminal conspiracy and character defamation before a Sokoto Magistrate’s Court.

They were also charged for act of gross indecency, abasement, sale of obscene book and printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.

The four suspects as(1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th)defendants whose names were contained in the police First Information Report(FIR) included Aminu Hayatu Tafida, Umar Abubakar, Mas’ud Abubakar Gidado and Aliyu Shehu Kangiwa Hafiz Ja’afar, the 5th defendant is still at large.

Police Prosecuting Officer, ASP Samuel Sule, said one Hajiya Safiya, alleged sometime in 2017, Baffa lured her daughter, then 16, to Phoenix Guest Inn, on the Eastern Bypass Sokoto and unlawfully had carnal knowledge of her and thereafter, recorded her nudity in an 18- second video clip.

The mother alleged the suspect conspired with Umar Abubakar, Mas’ud Abubakar Gidado, Aliyu Shehu Kangiwa and Hafiz Ja’afar.

She said the nude video was circulated on social media, which resulted to termination of her daughter’s wedding scheduled for October, 2020.

The Prosecuting officer noted their actions contravened sections 60(2), 260, 377, 262, 48, 171, 173 and 379 of the Sokoto State Panel Code.

Counsel to the 1st defendant, Barrister A.Y. Abubakar objected to the charges leveled against him on ground that there was no specific charge filed against his client.

“The contents of the FIR as it relate to 1st defendant are ambiguous and therefore, incompetent in view of the provision of section 90 of the administration of criminal justice law, 2019 of Sokoto state.

“An objection to incompetent charges can only be raised before the plea is taken. We therefore argue that the FIR contents are ambiguous, therefore be rejected by the court,” he said

Counsel to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, Barrister Yahya Y. Gwaza, who also objected to the charges, argued there was no sufficient material in the FIR contents linking the defendants (clients) with any offence.

According to him: “By the provision of Section 90 of the Administration of Criminal Justice law of the state, the FIR must link the defendants with any of the offences.”

He further pointed out “even from the FIR, the complaint of the complainant is against the 1st defendant alone.”

However, he urged the court to release the 2nd defendant on bail because he had been seriously sick while in the police custody.

Presiding Magistrate, Chief Magistrate Shu’aibu Ahmad adjourned the case to next Monday to allow the police file the charges properly.

He ordered that the suspects be remanded in the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department of the police.