IN THE ANNALS of a justice system, there are verdicts that do not merely decide a case; they put the system itself on trial. The recent judgment by Justice Manir Ladan of the Kaduna State High Court, sentencing Victor Solomon, popularly known as Zidane, to death by hanging, is one such verdict. It is a ruling that arrives shrouded in troubling context: Zidane is widely known in his community not as a criminal, but as a fearless defender who stood against the relentless tide of Fulani terrorist attacks plaguing Adara communities since 2016. His arrest and prosecution were, in the eyes of many, a punitive measure for his gallantry, a classic case of giving a dog a bad name to hang it.
The Kaduna State Government, through the Commissioners for Justice and Information, issued a statement on January 13th affirming the judgment as “lawful.” But legality is not synonymous with justice, and a judgment’s fortitude is tested not by official endorsement, but by its adherence to the bedrock principles of law: evidence, logic, and due process.
The eyewitness testimony used to secure the murder conviction defies belief. PW1 claimed he fled for “half a kilometer” in fear of his life. Yet, in the same breath, he claims to have witnessed from this distance the defendant not only stab the deceased but also behead him, open his stomach, and harvest his organs. This is not credible observation; it is a physical and narrative impossibility for someone fleeing a violent mob. The judge failed to separate what the witness claimed to see while fleeing from what he learned later (hearsay about the corpse’s condition). The conviction thus rests on attributing the specific, gruesome act of killing to Zidane based on inference piled upon impossibility.
A careful examination of the 31-page judgment in Suit No: KDH/KAD/78C/2020 (The State vs. Victor Solomon), however, reveals a document so riddled with fatal contradictions, procedural errors, and logical leaps that it collapses under its own weight. This is not a defense of impunity; it is a defense of the law itself. When the state uses a broken scale, no measure of justice can be true.
ALSO READ: January 15th 1966 And The Legacy Of The Military, By Jibrin Ibrahim
The Smoking Gun: A Chronological Impossibility
The most glaring and astonishing flaw lies at the very heart of the prosecution’s timeline, a discrepancy so fundamental it shatters the narrative of the crime. The prosecution witnesses (PW1 & PW2) insisted under oath that the fatal incident occurred on April 10, 2018. Yet, the very Police Report tendered by the prosecution as Exhibit 4 states unequivocally that the body of the deceased was discovered on March 29, 2018.
This is not a minor clerical error. It is a chronological impossibility. A man cannot be killed on April 10th if his corpse was found and documented by state authorities on March 29th. This contradiction strikes at the actus reus, the very act of the crime. Faced with this irreconcilable clash between oral testimony and its own documentary evidence, the judge performed a baffling sleight of hand. He stated the court is “not at liberty to pick and choose,” then proceeded to do exactly that, preferring the oral evidence over the document simply on the basis of “credibility.” This flies in the face of settled law, which holds that documentary evidence is the “hanger” upon which oral testimony is assessed (Fashanu v. Adekoya). By ignoring its own Exhibit, the prosecution impeached its own case, and the court sanctioned it. A reasonable doubt? This is a yawning chasm of uncertainty that alone should mandate an acquittal.
The Shadow of Torture and a Silent Alibi
The judgment’s handling of Zidane’s alleged confession is equally disturbing. The defendant (DW2) testified that he was tortured by Inspector Zaro (PW3) before making his statements. In Nigerian law, governed by the Evidence Act and precedents like Olayinka Sekun v. The State, an allegation of oppression or torture mandates a “trial-within-a-trial.” This is a separate, mini-hearing to determine the voluntariness of a confession before it can be admitted. The judgment records no such procedure. Yet, the court admitted the statements as Exhibits 1 and 2 and, crucially, relied on them to dismantle Zidane’s defense.
ALSO READ: Why Modern Nigerian Politics Has Abandoned Ideology For Opportunism; By Lawan Musa Danlami
His defense was an alibi: that on April 10, 2018, he was in Toko Village in Chikun local government area of Kaduna State, dredging a well, a fact supported by a witness (DW1). The judge dismissed this alibi partly because Zidane did not mention it in those contested statements. This is a profound error. If the statements were extracted under torture, they are legal nullities. You cannot use a document that may be the fruit of coercion to discredit a defense. The court, by failing to rule conclusively on the torture allegation, breached the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
Furthermore, the judge dismissed the alibi for an irrelevant contradiction about his arrest date (2018 vs. 2019), which has no bearing on his whereabouts on the day of the crime. The law is clear: once an alibi is raised with reasonable particularity (a specific village, activity, and witness), the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it, not for the accused to prove it beyond doubt. The failure of the police to even visit Toko Village to check the dredged well, a verifiable physical landmark, speaks volumes (Njovens v. The State).
Constructing a Crime Without Foundation
The judgment proceeds to convict on charges that lack evidential foundation. For “Voluntarily Causing Grievous Harm,” the court relied solely on a victim’s testimony of being stabbed. No medical report was tendered; no doctor testified. In law, “Grievous Harm” is a specific term, encompassing permanent disfigurement, loss of limb, or danger to life, that requires strict medical proof. A layperson’s description of a “deep cut” does not suffice. The judge cited Patrick v. State, a precedent about cause of death in homicide, to bypass this requirement for a non-fatal injury charge. This is a clear misapplication of law.
True justice is blind, but it is not illogical. It is not contradictory. It does not ignore its own evidence. This judgment, in its disregard for chronological fact, its sidestepping of torture allegations, its acceptance of impossible testimony, and its misapplication of legal standards, fails the most basic tests. The gallows loom not for a man justly convicted, but for a defender caught in the gears of a system that, in this instance, appears to have valued finality over fairness. The higher courts now have a solemn duty to examine this “smoking gun” of a discrepancy and the cascade of errors that followed. To uphold this verdict is not to uphold the law; it is to undermine the very foundation upon which public trust in justice rests.
The eyewitness testimony used to secure the murder conviction defies belief. PW1 claimed he fled for “half a kilometer” in fear of his life. Yet, in the same breath, he claims to have witnessed from this distance the defendant not only stab the deceased but also behead him, open his stomach, and harvest his organs. This is not credible observation; it is a physical and narrative impossibility for someone fleeing a violent mob. The judge failed to separate what the witness claimed to see while fleeing from what he learned later (hearsay about the corpse’s condition). The conviction thus rests on attributing the specific, gruesome act of killing to Zidane based on inference piled upon impossibility.
ALSO READ: Tinubu And The US-Nigeria Health Cooperation Of Controversy; By Zainab Suleiman Okino
Finally, the court invoked the doctrine of “common intention” to tie Zidane to the murder committed by a mob. While legally possible, it requires proof of a prior meeting of minds or a shared criminal purpose beyond mere presence. In the chaotic context of the mentioned Kasuwan Magani crisis, the judge assumed conspiracy from presence alone. The prosecution failed to prove which blow from the mob caused death or that Zidane specifically shared the intent to kill, rather than to wound.
A System’s Failure, A Community’s Anguish
Compounding these errors are investigative failures of staggering proportion. The Investigating Police Officer (PW3) took over the case two years after the incident. He never interviewed the soldiers who arrested Zidane. He never visited the crime scene promptly. Vital witnesses, like the village head to whom the crime was reported or the person who found the body, were never called. The law (Evidence Act, Section 167(d)) presumes that evidence withheld by the prosecution would have been unfavorable to its case. This stale, hearsay-based investigation irreparably prejudiced the defense.
The Kaduna State Government’s defense of this judgment as “lawful” rings hollow against this tapestry of flaws. What we see is not the meticulous application of law beyond reasonable doubt, but a rushed and assumptive process that consistently favored the prosecution’s narrative. For a community that sees Victor “Zidane” Solomon as a protector, this judgment feels like a targeted legal execution, a final, bureaucratic blow against a man who stood in the breach.
True justice is blind, but it is not illogical. It is not contradictory. It does not ignore its own evidence. This judgment, in its disregard for chronological fact, its sidestepping of torture allegations, its acceptance of impossible testimony, and its misapplication of legal standards, fails the most basic tests. The gallows loom not for a man justly convicted, but for a defender caught in the gears of a system that, in this instance, appears to have valued finality over fairness. The higher courts now have a solemn duty to examine this “smoking gun” of a discrepancy and the cascade of errors that followed. To uphold this verdict is not to uphold the law; it is to undermine the very foundation upon which public trust in justice rests.
This article by Steven Kefas, an investigative journalist, a human rights defender and publisher of Middle Belt Times, is called from his Facebook wall, entitled: “Can a Man Be Killed After His Corpse Is Found? A Kaduna Court Says “Yes,” Sentencing Victor “Zidane” Solomon to Death”
