The trial of the alleged organ harvesting incident tied to Alliance Hospital took a dramatic turn as inconsistencies surfaced in witness testimonies presented by the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP). Presided over by Justice Kezziah Ogbonnaya at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, the hearings revealed discrepancies in the accounts provided by NAPTIP’s principal witnesses.
The key witnesses, including Oluwatobi Saliman and Yahaya Musa, faced intense scrutiny over their statements, with discrepancies emerging regarding their age declarations, relationships with the organ recipients, and interactions with hospital staff. Despite claims of voluntariness, questions arose regarding potential financial motivations behind the organ donations.
The judge intervened, expressing dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s handling of evidence and urging adherence to legal procedures. The trial underscored the importance of truthful disclosure and adherence to legal protocols for a fair and transparent judicial process.
As the case adjourned until May 21st, the Alliance Hospital controversy continues to unfold, highlighting the complexities surrounding organ trafficking allegations and the pursuit of justice in such cases.
At the commencement of the trial focusing on the organ trafficking allegations, NAPTIP presented its key witness, Oluwatobi Saliman, who was led in evidence-in -chief and underwent questioning by the agency’s legal representative, Hassan Tahir. In the court session that took place on a Monday, Saliman, who is identified as a donor, meticulously described the series of steps involved in signing relevant documents before the surgical procedure.
He narrated his visit to the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he signed an affidavit confirming his age, and upon his return to the hospital, he acknowledged signing a form indicating that his decision to donate his kidney was entirely voluntary and not motivated by financial incentives. It was underscored that the recipient of the organ was a close family member.
He asserted that after the surgical procedure, he reached out to Emmanuel Olorunlaye (also known as Mayor), the person who accompanied him to the hospital, and asked for the outstanding balance of N1 million from him, as he had depleted the initial funds provided.
In the course of the cross examination of the witness, the defense attorney, Afam Osigwe, SAN, questioned whether the man had executed an affidavit and could confirm that he attested to being 18 years old in the affidavit at the moment of signing. The man confirmed this.
This discrepancy in his age created substantial inconsistencies, as he stated to the court that he was 16 years old, while asserting to be 17 in a separate civil litigation involving the hospital.
In regards to his connection with the recipient, the senior attorney sought confirmation from him whether the patient, Egbuson Samson, to whom he graciously donated his kidney, was a blood relative, as captured in the consent form. Additionally, he sought confirmation that the decision to donate his kidney was made of his own volition. The witness affirmed that he executed an affidavit at the high court using a light pen, and also signed the necessary consent forms prior to the surgical procedure.
During his testimony, he mentioned that after the surgery he journeyed to Ibadan; however, in a sworn statement to NAPTIP, he indicated that he traveled to Lagos.
The witness unequivocally stated that at no point was he coerced or pressured by any individual to donate his kidney. He emphasized that the decision to undergo the organ donation procedure was entirely voluntary and made of his own free will.
Day Two
On the second day of the hearing, NAPTIP introduced its second witness, Yahaya Musa, who was questioned by Hassan Tahir, legal counsel for NAPTIP. Musa testified that he encountered one Abdul in his community, who informed him of the opportunity to sell his kidney for One Million Naira at Alliance Hospital. Following his independent verification of the information, he visited the hospital and liaised with an individual named Mayor, who he stated guided him through the process. Musa claimed that he is 16 years old during his testimony. He also affirmed that he signed the necessary consent form and affidavit at the Federal High Court.
During the rigorous cross-examination conducted by Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), various inconsistencies were highlighted in the witness’s oral testimony, which contradicts his sworn affidavit at civil matter and his affidavit in this case before the court. One such inconsistency pertained to his age; he claimed to be 16 years old in court, stating he was 17 years in the sworn affidavit, and asserted in his age declaration that he was 18 years old.
The defense counsel, who was keen on ensuring coherence in the witness’s accounts, also identified additional discrepancies. He noted for instance, that in his sworn affidavit of a civil matter, the witness alleged that Abdul had fled when the police and his father attempted to apprehend him, whereas during his oral testimony, he claimed that Abdul had been arrested. The witness concluded by disavowing most of the content in the sworn statement, asserting that it was not reflective of his own words and had not been authored by him.
Another incorrect claim was made when he stated in court that the Mayor instructed him to stay in a hotel until his wound healed, whereas in his sworn affidavit he clearly stated that it was Dr. Aremu who recommended the hotel to stay after the surgery.
The witness concluded by asserting that the majority of the content in the affidavit he sworn to in a civil matter presented by the defence counsel does not belong to him and was not authored by him. Upon inquiry from the defense, he confirmed that he had never considered withdrawing from the surgical procedure.
When questioned by the defense counsel regarding his awareness of the contents of the consent form and the potential consequences, Musa stated that he was fully cognizant of the details. He mentioned that Dr. Aremu assured him that the surgeries would be conducted smoothly and safely, and he proceeded with the surgery after agreeing to the explanation from surgeon.
The defense counsel inquired whether the defendant was fully cognizant of the contents of the consent form he signed and the potential consequences. Musa affirmed that he had a thorough understanding, as Dr. Aremu assured him that the surgical procedures would be smooth and safe, and no harm would befall him. Consequently, he consented to and underwent the surgery.
When questioned by the defense counsel about his acquaintance with any of the staff members of Alliance Hospital, specifically Dr. Christopher Otabor, Chikaodili Ugochukwu, and Dr. Aremu Abayomi, Musa responded negatively, stating that he had never encountered any of them.
Eager to ascertain any possible connection with the hospital, the defense counsel inquired whether any staff members of Alliance Hospital had given Musa money in cash or deposited funds into his bank account. Musa denied this, clarifying that his first interaction with Dr. Otabor occurred after the surgery when they were both summoned by the police for questioning.
The witness confidently stated that he had requested one million naira as payment, which Mayor promptly provided after the surgery took place. It raises questions as to why the witness, who had signed a consent form with his photograph, claimed to be donating his kidney to a family member without any mention of financial gain, only to eventually receive payment for his organ donation. This discrepancy in the witness’s initial statement and subsequent actions brings into question the true motives behind the kidney donation and the financial transaction that followed.
The witness made it very clear that he was not influenced or forced by anyone to donate his kidney. He stressed that he freely chose to undergo the organ donation process without any external pressure. His decision was completely voluntary and came from his own desire to help others in need.
Day Three
On the third day of the trial, Aminu Yahuza, a 25-year-old man, was called as a witness by NAPTIP. During the cross-examination by the defense counsel, the first document presented to him was a statement on oath provided to NAPTIP. Yahuza vehemently denied the statement, asserting that he neither made the statement nor signed it.
Discrepancies also arose regarding witness place of origin. While testifying orally, Yahuza stated that he was from the Yelwa Local Government Area of Plateau State, which contradicted the information documented in the NAPTIP statement indicating that he hails from Mangu LGA.
Moreover, Yunusa’s narrative regarding his encounter with the accused individuals, Dr. Christopher Otabor, Chikaodili Ugochukwu, and Dr. Aremu Abayomi, was lacking in coherence. Initially, he mentioned that his acquaintance Abdul had relayed to him that an individual named Mayor was interested in selling their kidney.
However, he subsequently asserted that a manager had reached out to his intermediary, Mayor, directly. Nevertheless, Yunusa ultimately maintained that he had not come into contact with any hospital staff until Mayor escorted him to the medical facility.
Defence counsel Afam, SAN, in argued that Yunusa had previously arranged the sale of his kidney for one million naira with Mayor and Abdul before any interaction with Alliance Hospital. He emphasized that none of the hospital staff provided him with compensation for the donation. Yunusa corroborated this assertion, affirming that he did not receive any form of payment from any hospital official.
The witness adamantly affirmed that he was never manipulated or influenced by anyone to contribute his kidney. He stressed that the choice to proceed with the organ donation process was completely voluntary and a result of his own volition.
Judge’s Admonition
During the trial, the judge expressed dissatisfaction with the errors made by the prosecution counsel. The judge emphasized the importance of coherence between witness testimonies and material evidence in the case, pointing out inconsistencies. One key issue was the prosecution’s failure to review a document submitted under oath in a related civil case. The judge advised the prosecution on how to proceed, suggesting they request more time or seek an adjournment.
Despite the guidance provided, the prosecution did not act on it, leading to their witnesses appearing confused during cross-examination by the defense counsel. This highlights the importance of thoroughly understanding the evidence before taking legal action.
The judge also cautioned the prosecution about their witnesses’ reluctance to answer questions from the defense counsel, urging them to ensure their witnesses respond appropriately.
It was evident that the witnesses believed they could share sentimental stories on the stand without facing further scrutiny.
This situation underscores the need for witnesses to answer questions truthfully and provide relevant information during legal proceedings. The judge’s interventions aimed to ensure a fair and transparent trial process, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the pursuit of justice.
.
The presiding judge, Justice Kezziah Ogbonnaya, adjourned the proceedings to May 21st for the continuation of the hearing.
.