Saharareporters has obtained a copy of a threatening letter Mr. Kamorudeen wrote to the Civil Society organization, Women Arise, which first reported the matter to the police. The letter also contained threats to sue Saharareporters, and other media outlets, that reported his brutal assault.
The case of Mr. Kamorudeen Bankole is one of a man who allegedly beat his wife over piece of fish. It came up in court today, with his lawyer's plan to silence the media, and civil society's involvement in their agenda.
Mr. Kamorudeen Bankole appeared in a confident manner today. A manner in contrast to his prior ‘shaken’ court appearance, one in which reports went viral of his alleged assault on his wife, though he had admitted to his wife's family that he committed a brutal assault, and had promised to make restitution. Yet, his court actions today portrayed a total change of his intentions.
When his case was called at the Badagry Magistrate Court, his lawyer, Mr. Olaleye, had made a scrambled submission to the court. Olaleye had asked the court to grant his client “an assurance of protection” against what he called, “unfair media reporting of the proceedings”, and civil society's involvement in the case.
[story_link align="left"]34148[/story_link]He said his client felt “intimidated” by the involvement of both civil society and the media. He cited unfair media reportage in publications on this odd story, and had alleged ‘public persecution’ of his client by open public comments on the pending case.
He ended his court submission in the hope that the court would grant his client total censorship of media coverage, and also, civil society’s involvement in the case. The attorney stated to the court that it was only a matter "between a husband and a wife".
Information had earlier leaked-out that Mr. Bankole had threatened to isolate Mrs. Fatima Bankole, the victim in this case, from civil society protections and media coverage. The threat, the leak implied, was one so as to ‘railroad and further punish’ her. The actions of his lawyer for many sitting in the courtroom today, may have proved the earlier leaked information right. However, it did not go as attorney Olaleye had planned.
Responding to the application, the presiding magistrate scoffed at the defense counsel over what the judge called, “the subverting of the court's attention", from substance in the matter. In short, the judge countered, it was a move to engage the court with Olaleye’s sentiments against the activities of the media, and civil society's concerns.
Although the magistrate enlightened Mr. Olaleye that extant laws permit the sharing and publishing of information, he also called for his “presentation of proof” that both the media, and civil society's activities had caused his client unwarranted public commentary in this case.
Olaleye failed to provide the publications he said had hurt his client, to back his argument in court.
Meanwhile, aside from alleging public "persecution" of Mr. Kamorudeen for the attack act on his wife, the counsel also accused an unknown public figure of sending threatening text messages that, he said, were sent to his client's phone.
In the end, Mr. Olaleye also did not provide evidence of the alleged text message threats. Nor did he provide information to the court that would lead to technical tracing of the text notes.
In the beginning of this bizarre case it was publically gathered that Mr. Kamorudeen Bankole had gone to plead for leniency with his wife, Mrs. Fatima Bankole, and with her family. The plea for leniency came out after reports of his actions filtered out into the public realm.
His lawyer, however, assured Kamorudeen Bankole that he would ‘reverse the tide’ of bad publicity by making the court censor media coverage of the case, and civil society’s involvement.
Mr. Kamorudeen Bankole had reportedly changed his ways since he got bail at the police station, threatening that his battered wife would return from the court with guilt. His threat was a sharp contrast from his initial pleading, and promises to make reparations. He was said to rely on his counsel for making the new threats, rather than carry on with the truce.
Saharareporters had obtained copy of a threatening letter Mr. Kamorudeen wrote to the civil society organization, Women Arise, which first reported the matter to the police.
The letter also contained threats to sue Saharareporters and other media outlets, that reported his brutal assault.
As court steered away the counsel, and Mr. Olaleye's frivolous applications for media censorship, the magistrate called on the Police and Public prosecutor for findings and evidence in their investigation. But the police and public prosecutor said they had “no medical report” for the victim. They said the victim had come to them with a medical report from a private hospital.
But officials at the private hospital had rejected her claims, and referred her to a public hospital. In a strange twist, medical doctors closed down the public hospitals at the time due to the industrial action. Hence, they would not have any valid medical report for the victim.
The magistrate, however, held that it was “trite” to admit reports from where she had treatment, even as public hospitals were on strike.
"So, if I am a medical doctor and run a private hospital, would I not be qualified to state my findings in the course of treating a patient later at court?" That was a key part of the issue the magistrate queried. He admitted the documents with stamps from the local council as evidence against an unavailable report from public hospitals that are yet closed down.
He also asked the police for offences they have charged the defendant with, but in sketchy language regarding the attack that brought this case to court, the documents only read, "wounding".
While ruling for adjournment, the magistrate ordered to transfer the case file to the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP).
The case was adjourned till the 24th of August.