The law is well settled, that the prosecution always has the burden to prove the commission of an offence. This tallies with the honoured principle of law that he who asserts must prove. In criminal cases, the law places the burden of proof on the prosecution. The standard of such proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt, in order to establish that an accused person had really committed the offence or the wrongful act. See the case of  Ani v State (2000) 6 SCNJ 98 at 107. — Justice Amiru Sanusi in Ugboji vs. State (2017) LPELR-43427 (SC).

Sixes and nines. When the curtains reopen in the Federal High Court in Abuja, and Justice Emeka Nwite entertains the police and Isaac Bristol again, he would have before him two parties whose perspectives differ. On the one hand, the police believe they have caught a man and his alter ego in one person, but Bristol claims he has been proxy-arrested in the stead of a persona that may be at large; his sixes to the police’s nines.

In Nigeria, proxy arrest is “unprofessional, illegal, and unacceptable”, Muyiwa Adejobi says. He speaks in an official capacity for the country’s Police Force. His statement enjoys the backing of Section 7 of the Administrative Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

So, when the police say to Nwite, “We have before you, the handler of the @PIDOMNigeria X account who has committed nine separate offences we currently know of”, in line with section 139 of the Evidence Act (2011), they would first have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the man in the dock is indeed whom they claim he is.

The law assumes a position of neutrality so, despite members of the public referring to both parties as the same person, Lady Justice must be blind to these referrals, lest the judge recuse himself as would be ethically required.

Notwithstanding, if the prosecution does prove these links convincingly, it would don a new burden of proving its nine allegations in a bid to secure life imprisonment for the whistleblower.

COUNT 1

The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) claimed, amongst the police’s allegations against Bristol, that in soliciting support and mobilising Nigerians to protest via the hashtag: #EndBadGovernanceinNigeria, in August, Bristol should go to jail for the rest of his life.

Already 41, and with a national life expectancy of 55.1 years, if found guilty, Isaac would live out the next 14 years of his natural life behind bars, and more if he outlives the national average. Why? According to the police, protesting in the manner he is accused of doing, he is a terrorist who violates the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2024.

A Person who accesses or causes to be accessed any Computer or Computer System or Network for purposes of terrorism commits an offence and is liable on conviction to life imprisonment — Section 18 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2024.

READ MORE: Police Name David Hundeyin as Accomplice in Cybercrimes Charges Against ‘PIDOM’

To secure a conviction, the police would have to show beyond doubt that Bristol’s online activity was with the intention of using violence and intimidation to achieve a political motive.

Have the police prosecuted persons with this count before?

Yes.

How did it go?

On February 16, a court dismissed terrorism charges against Nigerian journalist and activist Omoyele Sowore. The same happened on March 21, 2022, for Nigerian journalist Agba Jalingo. Both journalists and several others have stood trial for this allegation, but despite long-drawn-out trials, there was no conviction.

Bristol’s survival chances: High

COUNT 2

“That you Bristol Tamunobifiri ‘M’ 41 years of No. 36 Hardy Avenue, Port Harcourt, Rivers State in Nigeria within this Honourable court sometime between June and July 2024 within the jurisdiction of the Honourable transmitted an alleged classified document of the Federal Government of Nigeria by means of X handle @Pidomnigeria with username #99%opressed wherein you knowingly sent a false message to with: See the document below wherein Tinubu released the sum of N24,143,494,567.32 billion Naira to [the] NAHCON Chairman through Shettima’s office. Because Nigerians didn’t react enough, they went back and increased it to a whopping Ninety Billion Naira. ‘Saraka’ for the men. Free money with the intentional of causing the breakdown of law and order and you hereby commit an offence contrary to section 24 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention etc) Act 2015 as amended 2024.”

Here, the claim by the police is that Bristol not only shared false information, but knew it was false before sharing. By adopting the amended controversial section 24 of the Cybercrime Act, they assume sharing this information was with the purpose of causing anarchy or threat to life.

Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that is pornographic or he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order, posing a threat to life or causing such messages to be sent — Section 24 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2024.

READ MORE: I’m Not PIDOM, Isaac Bristol Insists

If the police can first prove it to be false information, they then would need to prove he knew this beforehand. Achieving it would bag Bristol a three-year jail term, a N7 million fine or both. To escape a guilty verdict, Bristol would have to defend the claim, and ‘truth’ is the best defence against defamation allegations.

Bristol’s survival chances: High

COUNTS 3, 4 & 5

Three of the counts preferred against Bristol border on breach of Section 1 (b) of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1962.

Anyone who obtains, reproduces or retains any classified matter which he is not authorised on behalf of the government to obtain, reproduce or retain, as the case may be, is guilty of an offence — Section 1 (b) of the Official Secrets Act, 1962.

It is not the first time a Nigerian would stand trial for alleged violation of the OSA. Six years ago on August 13, 2018, Samuel Ogundipe, the current Peoples Gazette publisher, was accused of erring in this regard.

Ogundipe, while working with Premium Times, wrote a story off a report Abubakar Idris, the then IGP, sent to Yemi Osinbajo, who was Nigeria’s acting president.

Contained in the report was an indictment against Lawal Daura, the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) at the time, over an invasion of the National Assembly.

According to the police, Ogundipe physically broke into their facilities to obtain the document and his actions threatened national security. To prove a violation of the OSA, one must prove the documents’ secrecy falls under the waivers granted by the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, and reproduction or publication of such documents indeed threatens national security. In Ogundipe’s case, a conviction never came.

If an indictment happens now, the court has the discretion to jail Bristol for a term not longer than 14 years, but if there is a summary conviction in this case, the position of the law is that he spends no longer than two years in prison, pays a N100,000 fine or do both.

Unlike Ogundipe’s case, the tweets circulated by ‘PIDOM’ came with admissions that the documents were classified or official secrets. If the police are able to establish beyond all doubts that the man they have his Pidom, his survival chances are slim. If they aren’t, then his chances are high. This looks like a 50-50.

Bristol’s survival chances: Medium

COUNTS 6, 7 & 8

What the government wants the court to determine, by filing counts six to eight, is that Bristol knew he was receiving money from persons who obtained it through fraudulent means.

The police claim that Bristol “intentionally, knowingly or ought to have known that such funds were proceeds of, or part of proceeds of an unlawful act, and is therefore, guilty of money-laundering”.

If found guilty, he would be deemed to have run foul of Section 18 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

Violating this provision is punishable under Section 18 (3) of the same Act. By law, a guilty verdict would mean a four-year to 14-year jail term or forfeiture of funds no more than five times the total funds realised.

The challenge now is for the police to establish that funds paid into what they believe to be Bristol’s crypto wallet were fraudulently earned, and that Bristol knew or should have known. The first one is hard enough to prove; the second is even harder!

Bristol’s survival chances: High

COUNT 9

During the August 5 invasion of Bristol’s hotel room, the alleged whistleblower’s phone became damaged and unresponsive.

“They came like robbers in mufti,” Bristol told EQ when narrating the events that played out during his abduction. When the police eventually had him in their custody, they realised his phone was damaged.

How the police perceive the situation is that Bristol knew they were policemen and decided to destroy his phone so they wouldn’t be able to create links between the person they had in custody and the online persona.

Any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of any kind, is or may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, wilfully removes, conceals or destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification, with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years — Section 123 of the Criminal Code Act.

Deleting evidence is never a good look on a defendant as there is no easy defence to such an action. However, the prosecution has its work cut out for it. It would have to show the judge that the controversial device was a subject of interest and that Bristol indeed destroyed it with the knowledge that it would be used in a judicial proceeding.

These charges all rest on the same legal placement of the burden of proof on the prosecution. If the defendant maintains the ‘not guilty’ plea he entered on Tuesday, he leaves the prosecution in the unenviable position of attempting to eliminate all shreds of reasonable doubt in its bid to condemn him to a lifetime behind bars.

Proving this claim would be hard for the police, since they arrested him in mufti, and unless they have recorded evidence of Bristol knowing they were policemen yet destroying the said device. Otherwise, Bristol’s chances are as wide as an expressway!

Bristol’s survival chances: High

Lady Justice now sees Bristol as innocent until Nwite rules otherwise, so if he sees sixes on the board, they remain sixes until the police’s compelling evidence forces the judge to pronounce them nines. The match venue has been set and, in the coming weeks, perspectives will be questioned and, while both parties think now that they are right, only one can be in the end. Sixes — and nines.
The post ANALYSIS: Every Single Charge Against Isaac Bristol — And His Survival Chances appeared first on Foundation For Investigative Journalism.