By Felix Kuyinu
Popular transgender, Idris Okuneye, otherwise known as Borisky, has expressed his disatisfaction over the six months conviction sentence ruled against him at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
Justice Abimbola Awogboro, without an option of a fine, made the verdict at the court following the convict pleading guilty to the charges of abuse and mutilation of the Nigerian currency proffered against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commision, EFCC.
However, the social media figure, through his lawyer, Bimbo Kusanu, stated that the court’s imposed verdict on the Appellant is punitive and in contrary to the provisions of the ADCJA Law.
The lawyer in an appeal said that his client has no previous record of any criminal acts and, thus, deserved a lesser sentencing as stipulated by the provisions of the ADCJA.
Counsel Kusanu also stated that his client honoured the invitation by the EFCC when being summoned for investigation, further noting that the trial Court did not consider the positive antecedent of the Appellant who did not waste the precious Judicial resources of the trial Court when he pleaded guilty to the Charge.
The lawyer claimed that, “The sentence of the Lower Court imposed the maximum penalty of 6-months imprisonment without option of fine on the Appellant who is a first-time convict without a previous record of criminal conviction.
“The Learned trial Judge erred in Law and facts by his imposition of the maximum sentence of 6 Months imprisonment terms against the Appellant without the option of fine contrary to the provisions of Section 416(2) d of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 (“ADCJA”) that prescribed the mandatory guidelines on the trial Court on imposition of sentencing after criminal conviction of a first time offender as the Appellant.
“The trial Court imposed the maximum sentence on the Appellant who has no previous record criminal of conviction when there are options to impose a lesser sentence by the provisions of the ADCJA.
“The Sentence imposed by the trial Court against the Appellant is punitive contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Law (ADCJA) on sentencing.
“The reasons adduced by the learned trial Court for the imposition of maximum punishment on the Appellant which is essentially on what foreigners think of abuse of Naira, is perverse and is out of tune with the reality of what the trial Court should have been considered to impose maximum punishment on the Appellant.
“The intendment of the provisions of the Central Bank Act 2007 that the Appellant was charged with is for Nigerians not to tamper with Naira and not what nationals of foreign countries view about tampering with Naira.
“The trial Court did not consider the positive antecedent of the Appellant who did not waste the precious Judicial resources of the trial Court when he pleaded guilty to the Charge. The Appellant honoured the invitation of the Respondent-Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the first invitation during the investigation leading to the charge.
“The trial Court failed to exercise his discretion judiciously and judicially in sentencing the Appellant. which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant”
Consequently, the lawyer urged the court to set aside the 6 months maximum imprisonment sentence imposed on him and in its place impose a fine of N50,0 0 0 ( F i f y Thousand Naira) on each of the counts against convict.
