LAGOS COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DEATH PENALTY ON DANE NATIONAL FOR MURDER OF WIFE, DAUGHTER
Read Time:5 Minute, 38 Second
By Aishat Momoh. O.
The conviction of a Danish national Peter Nielsen, who was given the death penalty in 2022 for killing his Nigerian wife Zainab and their daughter Petra, has been affirmed by the Lagos Court of Appeal.
The appeal filed by Nielsen was dismissed by the appellate court due to its lack of merit.
In rendering its decision, the appeals court determined that the Lagos State Government, the Respondent, had proven Nielsen, the Appellant, guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
It rejected the appellant’s case and decided the appeal in favor of the respondent.
The appellate court said, “The corroborative evidence of DNA also strengthened the circumstantial evidence against the Appellant.
“There was no proof of breaking into the apartment as suggested by the Appellant.”
“The missing exhibits as a result of the end SARS attack on the court does not affect the defence of the Appellant as he had ample opportunity before the attack on the Court.
On June 13, 2018, the Lagos State Government charged the 53-year-old defendant on two counts of murder. If found guilty, Section 223 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos, 2015 stipulates the death penalty. To the charges, he had entered a not guilty plea.
On April 5, 2018, at roughly 3.45 am, Mr. Nielsen was accused of killing his wife, Zainab, a musician also known as Alizee, and his daughter at their Banana Island home in the Ikoyi neighborhood of Lagos.
In her ruling on May 20, 2022, Lagos State High Court trial judge Justice Okikiolu-Ighile (Rtd) based her ruling on the pathologist Professor John Obafunwa’s post-mortem examination. According to his statement, Zainab’s neck and head wounds were consistent with a blunt assault.
The autopsy report additionally mentioned that suffocation was the cause of death due to the “tiny signs of bleeding.”
The court determined that smothering, which resulted in both deceased individuals’ lack of oxygen, was the primary cause of Zainab’s death and that her medical history did not support the possibility that she killed herself or had epilepsy.
On whether the deaths were caused by the defendant (Peter Nielsen), the court recounted several testimonies by the prosecution’s witnesses including a housemaid, Zainab’s sibling and two police officers who testified during the trial to incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Mr Nielsen on the late musician.
The court particularly described Zainab’s sister, Pepe, who was about 13 years old at the time of the incident as a witness of truth who testified about a fight between the couple in 2017, adding that the defendant had threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone about what she saw.
Justice Okikiolu-Ighile said,”Nielsen was the one who killed Zainab, Peter Nielsen was also the one that killed Petra Nielsen. Zainab had already predicted her death when she told their driver that this man would kill me. She told her step father Chris Madaki, when she went to Abuja that this man would kill me.”
The judge found Nielsen guilty of two counts murder preferred against him by Lagos state government.
Okikiolu-Ighile, held that the oral and documentary evidence before the court showed that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nielsen smothered his wife and daughter.
“This is one of the cases of domestic violence.
“The DNA analysis of nail scraping brought out the assailant of Zainab.
“Zainab tried so much to defend herself. The evidence shows that Peter Nielsen killed his wife and daughter.
“There is evidence before the court that there is a fight between the defendant and his wife,” the judge held.
“Peter has always domestically abused his wife which was shown in the police extract from Ikoyi Police Station.
“She didn’t know that her marriage to the defendant was void abi nitio because Peter was already married in Denmark.
The judge held “It is the judgment of the court that, you Peter Nielsen, is found guilty of the murder of Zainab and Petra Nielsen on April 5, 2018.
“I hereby pronounce that you Peter Nielsen, shall be hanged by the neck till death, may God have mercy on you,” she said.
But dissatisfied with the judgment Peter Nielsen approached the appeal court to challenge his conviction.
In the 16 grounds of appeal, the convict asked the court of Appeal to revoke his conviction on the grounds that he was not given access to material evidence and reasonable facilities for his defence.
He said that the trial court erred in law when his lordship convicted and sentenced the appellant despite not giving him access to material evidence and reasonable facilities for his defence, and also failed to access and evaluate materials that contained exculpatory evidence.
” It is a constitutional requirement that a defendant in a criminal trial should be availed of reasonable facilities and material in preparation and leading evidence for his defence.
“In this case the Prosecution collected and tendered exhibits which are the night dress of Zainab Nielsen and the jumpsuit of Petra Nielsen.
“Both the night dress and jumpsuit belongs to Zainab and Petra Nielsen respectively are material evidence in this case as they State who had contact with the deceased person on the night they died.
” PW 9, testified of the presence of an unknown male profile which does not match the appellant found on Zainab’s night dress.
“Also he testified that the appellant’s DNA was not found on Petra’s jumpsuit.
” The appellant called DW6, who is a forensic expert and requested that Zainab’s night dress be given to him in order to conduct tests and lead evidence thereon to establish the profile of this unknown male, but this opportunity was not given to the appellant.”
The defence also said,” The appellant during his examination in chief also requested that Petra’s jumpsuit be availed to him in order to lead evidence thereon and the opportunity to lead evidence thereon was not given to him.
“It is trite law that when a defendant is not availed of the opportunity and access to reasonable facilities and material to lead evidence in his defence particularly facilities with exculpatory evidence, it amounts to denial of fair trial.
“The court below in refusing to comment on the dress in the face of exculpatory evidence led by the prosecution, failed to assess and evaluate a very cogent piece of evidence in favour of the appellant.
” The court below cannot rightly convict the appellant in the face of lack of access and opportunity to use exculpatory evidence by the appellant and for failure to access and evaluate evidence raising doubt in favor of the appellant.
The appellate court however rejected the appeal of Peter Nielsen and upheld his conviction by the lower court.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0