Court orders FRSC to reinstate employee suspended over stolen phone

Ini Billie, Uyo

The Akwa Ibom State High Court sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State has ordered the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) to immediately recall Superintendent Route Commander, Abochi John, suspended over a stolen phone.

It was gathered that John, the Acting Unit Head of Operations, Mbak Unit Command in the Itu Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State, was suspended by the FRSC and his salary stopped for receiving a stolen Samsung Galaxy J7 phone in 2016 said to be worth N75,000.

The presiding judge, Justice Ntong Ntong, discharged and acquitted Abochi John, the 53-year-old indigene of Dekina LGA of Kogi State alongside one Anietie Okokon Udoh, a 37-year-old father of four, from Ikot Ayang Itam in the Itu LGA of Akwa Ibom State of two counts of receiving stolen property.

The court dismissed the charge against Abochi John and Anietie Okokon Udoh and declared that by virtue of the evidence, the accused were innocent.

The court also ordered the “Federal Road Safety Corps to pay Abochi John, all his salaries, allowances, entitlements and such other benefits accruable to him from the day of his suspension to date.

“The reinstatement of the suspended FRSC officer shall take effect forthwith and the payments of his salaries carried out within three months, on or before 16th April 2023.

“It is worrisome why the FRSC officer was suspended when the Federal Road Safety Corps ought to know that an accused person is presumed innocent during the trial.

“In a criminal trial, the onus lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that even when the accused person admitted, committed the offence, the prosecution is still not relieved of its burden,” the judge stated.

Justice Ntong noted that the prosecution created serious doubts in the mind of the court with the first prosecution witness, Mrs Utomobong Johnson, the Head of Administration, Legal, of El-Coolex Limited, the company that was allegedly robbed, testifying on hearsay evidence, not admissible in law.

According to the court, the fourth Prosecution Witness, Mr Deeka Nwigbara from the Anti-Robbery Squad, State Criminal Investigation Department, Uyo, who was assigned to investigate the matter, could not confirm how the second prosecution witness, Somairi Dienye Jaja, the Managing Director of the company, tracked the stolen phones to the accused persons.

“Police exhibited great lackadaisical attitude in investigating the matter, the reason why the police officer said he investigated armed robbery, stalls breaking and stealing in one breath and in another breath, he somersaulted to an abysmal level of contradicting himself.

“The police officer did not conduct any thorough investigation, but stayed in the comfort of his office and repeated the cock and bull stories other prosecution witnesses told him, which he accepted hook line and sinker without more.

“The prosecution merely parades the charge of receiving a stolen property without credible evidence, the court cannot allow himself to be encapsulated by sentiments and speculations, to punish an innocent soul.

“Even though the prosecution alleged that the robbery occurred sometime in April 2016, the police did not commence investigations until 28th June 2017, a period of more than one year after the alleged incident.

“For the court to act positively on evidence to grant a conviction, such evidence must be credible, positive and unassailable, not a cut and joined evidence.

“The evidence of the accused is direct, positive and believable that he bought a phone on credit for instalment payment, but as soon as he realised that the phone was faulty, he terminated the transaction, returned the phone and collected his deposit,” the court noted.

Justice Ntong further held, “That the prosecution has failed to convince the court and has not established by credible evidence that the legal elements of an offence of receiving stolen items are present in the case.

“A mere fact that the police arrested a person, gave him the alleged stolen phones and made him pose for journalists, is not enough for the court to convict such a person.

“Since the court was not told who stole the phones and where the phones were stolen from, the police should return the nine phones tendered as exhibits to the owners,” the court ruled.