The circumstances surrounding the death of a young woman reportedly found in the residence of Senator Dave Umahi have understandably generated public concern. At this stage, however, any legal analysis must be guided by established principles of criminal justice rather than speculation or public sentiment.
A useful point of reference is Ikomi v. The State, where the Supreme Court emphasised that where a person dies in circumstances that are unnatural, suspicious or unexplained, the law imposes a duty on investigators to thoroughly examine the facts and gather all available evidence before determining whether any person bears criminal responsibility. The case reinforces the principle that criminal liability must be established through credible evidence rather than conjecture.
The apparent similarity between that decision and the present matter lies in the fact that both involve an unnatural death occurring within premises connected to another person. In such situations, the owner or occupier of the premises does not automatically become criminally liable. However, the law equally does not permit investigators to ignore that individual merely because of his status, office or political influence. Every person who may possess material information is a legitimate subject of investigation.
The Constitution guarantees equality before the law. The office held by Senator Dave Umahi neither confers immunity from criminal investigation nor places him beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies. Constitutional immunity under section 308 of the Constitution is reserved for the President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors while in office. It does not extend to ministers, senators or any other public office holders.
Consequently, if a person dies under suspicious circumstances in premises owned or occupied by Senator Umahi, the police owe a legal duty to secure the scene, obtain forensic evidence, interview all witnesses, record statements from everyone present, including Senator Umahi if necessary, and determine whether any offence has been committed. Failure to do so would amount to unequal application of the law and could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
That said, the demand should be for a lawful investigation rather than a predetermined conclusion. An arrest is justified only where investigators have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person committed an offence or where the person’s arrest is necessary to facilitate effective investigation in accordance with the law. Likewise, prosecution can only follow where the evidence disclosed by the investigation establishes a prima facie case.
The rule of law requires that neither influence nor public pressure should dictate the outcome. If the investigation reveals evidence linking Senator Dave Umahi to the commission of any offence, he should be arrested where legally justified, charged before a court of competent jurisdiction and afforded the same fair trial guaranteed to every citizen. If, on the other hand, the investigation exonerates him, he is equally entitled to the full protection of the law.
The enduring lesson from Ikomi v. The State is not that every owner of premises where a death occurs is guilty of an offence. Rather, it is that suspicious deaths must be investigated thoroughly, objectively and without fear or favour. The law loses its moral authority when influential persons are insulated from scrutiny.
Conversely, it is equally compromised when accusations are treated as proof of guilt. Justice demands an impartial investigation followed by prosecution only where the evidence warrants it.
Osadolor Okunkpolor, Esq, AICMC., is a legal practitioner from Benin City Edo State, Nigeria.
