A Lagos State High Court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square will, on October 15, 2024, resume the trial of Chidinma Ojukwu, charged with the murder of Michael Usifo Ataga, the Super TV Chief Executive Officer.
Ojukwu, a 300-level Mass Communication student at the University of Lagos, is charged with the murder of Ataga alongside her sister, Chioma Egbuchu, and Adedapo Quadri.
The defendants were charged on October 12, 2021, by the Lagos State Government.
Ojukwu and Quadri are charged with conspiracy, murder, and stabbing on counts one through eight, while her sister, Egbuchu, is charged with taking the late Ataga’s iPhone 7.
Ojukwu and Quadri were accused of conspiring to murder Ataga on June 15, 2021, by stabbing him multiple times in the neck and chest with a knife.
The murder happened at No. 19 Adewale Oshin Street in Lekki Phase 1, Lagos.
It was gathered that before the ongoing court’s vacation, the prosecution had called 11 witnesses.
The 11th witness, forensic expert Dr. Richard Somiari, told the court that the DNA blood sample recovered on Chidinma’s scarlet clothing matched that of the victim, Ataga.
Mrs. Adenike Oluwafemi, Lagos State Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, led Somiari, a director and consultant for the Lagos State DNA and Forensic Centre, into evidence.
He informed the court that he had been practicing forensics for 15 years and had completed over 500 forensic tests.
Somiari told the court that his office received 21 different items from the DNA centre on various days.
According to him, the things obtained as evidence included a soiled red dress, an army green T-shirt, and a DNA sample from Chidinma Ojukwu.
Somiari stated that the DNA on the red clothing matched that of the victim, Ataga, but not that of Chidinma or the other suspects, Babalola Disu and Oluwatomi Dada.
During cross-examination by the first defendant’s counsel, Mr. Onwuka Egwu, the witness explained to the court how the toxicological report was transmitted to the offices of the Lagos Attorney General, Commissioner of Police, and Director of Public Prosecutions.
When asked if he questioned Dr. Andrea Nuhu’s report in the United States, the witness responded, “I have already stated that I am not a toxicologist. A toxicologist is capable of doing so.”
However, Egwu requested that a video of the crime scene be shown, which the court permitted.
While the video was playing, he questioned the witness if blood samples from the cotton, wall, duvet, white polo the victim was wearing, chair, and carpeting had been analysed.
The witness said that the samples were not submitted. He clarified that the markers listed in his report have nothing to do with the video.
Earlier, Somiari informed the court that certain samples were stored but not examined. Mr. Babatunde Busari, lawyer for the second defendant, also cross-examined the witnesses.
When he asked if a DNA sample had been taken from the second defendant, Quadri, the witness responded no.
The counsel also asked the witness if he had taken part in the toxicology analysis, to which he replied no.
Ms. C. G. Ugochikwu, counsel for the third defendant, stated that she did not have an examination for the witness.
