Ensuring Order in the Court, Judge Hakeem Oshodi's Warning Against Charms

The public has been cautioned by Ikeja High Court Judge Hakeem Oshodi to cease leaving charms in his courtroom.

At the start of the trial for five individuals accused of killing Ifeanyi Etunmuse on Monday, Oshodi issued the warning.

Judge Hakeem Oshodi’s warning at the beginning of the trial signals a departure from the typical proceedings witnessed in courtrooms. While judges routinely emphasize decorum and respect during trials, the specific mention of charms suggests a recurring issue that has compelled Justice Oshodi to address it explicitly. The warning underscores the need for a courtroom environment free from superstitious practices that might disrupt the proceedings or compromise the sanctity of the judicial process.

To comprehend the significance of the judge’s warning, it’s essential to consider the cultural context surrounding the use of charms, particularly in legal settings. Charms, often imbued with spiritual or supernatural significance, are sometimes believed to bring luck, protection, or influence outcomes. In certain cultures, people may resort to such practices out of tradition or personal beliefs, seeking an edge in legal matters. However, in the formal setting of a courtroom, these practices can clash with the principles of impartiality and objectivity that underpin the justice system.

The caution against leaving charms in the courtroom is not merely a symbolic gesture; it speaks to the larger issue of preserving the sanctity of the judicial process. Courts are designed to be spaces of reason, evidence, and legal argumentation. Introducing elements like charms, which are not recognized as legitimate evidence or legal arguments, can undermine the integrity of the proceedings. Judge Oshodi’s warning is a firm reminder that the court is a domain where justice should be blind, impartial, and based on the merits of the case.

While the warning emphasizes the need for a courtroom free from superstitious practices, it’s crucial to acknowledge and respect the cultural diversity within the community. The use of charms may be deeply rooted in certain cultural and religious beliefs. As the judicial system evolves, finding a delicate balance between respecting cultural diversity and upholding the formalities of legal proceedings becomes essential. Judges, like Justice Hakeem Oshodi, navigate this delicate terrain by establishing clear boundaries that ensure fairness and equality before the law.

They were charged with attempted murder and the murder of Etunmuse at Western Funeral Home, Ijede, Ikorodu.
The judge adjourned the matter until Feb. 19, 2024, for the continuation of the trial.

The judge, who referred to the charm as ‘property’, warned the courtroom audience, “Do not leave your property here again. It does not work anymore. “No one should leave charms in my courtroom. It should not be repeated. A talisman was found after the last adjourned date in the murder case,” he said.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the Lagos State Government brought charges against the five suspects: Atunrase Omolabi, Shittu Olawale, Olaide Opeifa, Olanrewaju Adebiyi aka Maja, and Jamiu Omosanya aka Orobo.

They were charged with attempted murder and murder of Etunmuse at Western Funeral Home, Ijede Ikorodu.

Earlier in the trial, the defence counsel continued with the cross-examination of the prosecution witness, Babatunde Olayinka.

Olanrewaju Ajanaku, the lead defence counsel for the first, second, and third defendants, and later on the fifth defendant, asked Olayinka if he could say that the defendants had a hand in the attack on the deceased.

He also asked him if he was able to get a view of the compound of the local politician and funeral services businessman, Oluwatosin Onamade, from his hiding place following the alleged attack.

The witness told the court that he hid in the cemetery and lay down for a while to hide from a group of men that he saw wielding machetes at the Onamade compound on the day of the incident, April 16, 2021.

The witness further told the court that, as he hid himself from the machete-wielding men, he turned around and saw a dead body beside him.

Ajanaku asked the witness, “Can you say emphatically that the first, second, third, and fifth defendants had anything to do with the body you saw?”

The witness replied that he could not say emphatically that the defendants had anything to do with the body.

The defense counsel to the fourth defendant, Mahmud Adesina, continued with the cross-examination of the prosecution witness and questioned him on whether he had told the court earlier that Femi Onamade, a relative of Oluwatosin Onamade, was the one who knew the defendants in person.

Olayinka affirmed that it was Femi who knew the defendants and Oluwatosin who could identify them.

The prosecution counsel, Mr. M. T. Adewoye, re-examined the witness and asked him to clarify what he meant when he told the court earlier that he could not identify the defendants.

Olayinka told the court that he indeed saw the machete-wielding men when they came into the compound.

Adewoye requested the court issue a witness summons for Femi Onamade to appear in court.

The judge then issued a witness summons for Femi Onamade.

The judge adjourned the matter until Feb. 19, 2024, for the continuation of the trial.

In a previous court hearing on April 6, the prosecution alleged that the suspects also cut off the wrist of Femi Onamade, the younger brother of Tosin Onamade.