Who killed Biggy, was the million-dollar poser last week. Was it a hit-and-run driver like I wrote last week? Was it an unknown driver, rider or a mysterious killer? It wasn’t. I know who killed Biggy. It was Biggy’s friend and brethren who killed him. It wasn’t premeditated. It wasn’t planned.
It was pure negligence on both the driver and the victim. This crash occurred within the city which questions the speed at the time and possibly distraction due to impaired driving. Was the simple life-saving look left, look right and left again observed? Maybe not.
For the records, Biggy’s killer did not know his victim when the crash occurred. While he was being moved from one hospital to another, he still didn’t know. He only got to know a few hours close to his death when his fiancé identified Biggy by his dress sense during church services. Shocking, you would say, but that is the truth about how Biggy died.
The whole story surrounding Biggy death is like a movie scene. It opened with Biggy’s mother reluctantly dropping him off at a bus stop at his request. After dropping him, the mother confessed feeling uneasy about the whole movement, wishing he could cancel the planned visit.
While driving off, she kept viewing him from the rear mirror as if oblivious of the tragedy awaiting her beloved son until she lost sight of him. Biggy, I learnt was a sickler, but he did not die due to this but by the error of a friend. The Sunday after his death was meant to mark his birthday.
Fortunately, when the incident happened, the driver; Biggy’s friend, actually stopped to assist him to the hospital at Maitama before moving him to another bigger hospital. Like most accident victims who die because of hospital negligence, Biggy was another victim.
The ‘’golden hour; the critical 60-minute period after a severe injury or medical event where timely treatment is most effective was muddled up at the hospital. I told you Biggy sustained no external but head injury. At the hospital, he showed signs of internal head injury such as problems with speech.
Other signs included vision, changes in mental state like confusion or disorientation, agitation, and loss of consciousness which were all ignored. It was only when blood was draining from his ears or nose that a lame attempt was made to pull him in for surgery which was just too late.
Biggy’s death was a classic example of hospital negligence in handling fatal road crash victims. A review of medical negligence in the Nigerian Health Sector reveals that a significant portion of patients’ fatalities in hospitals are due to medical errors and inadequate infrastructure. Medical negligence in Biggy’s case included poor attitude of medical personnel, failure in diagnosis, treatment and care.
Like I asked last week, why is it difficult to convict a killer driver in Nigeria? I know the cases of traffic offenders are vigorously handled by the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) through the mobile courts despite judicial limitations. However, the implementation of advanced data management systems to monitor and analyse traffic patterns, accident reports and enforcement through the FRSC Mobile Application, a one-stop App under the watch of Shehu Mohammed, Corps Marshal, will no doubt add a fillip to the crackdown on such drivers. So too will the National Crash Information Recording System Portal (NACRIS).
Now, I wish my friends and legal pals were reachable to take me through some legal tutoring on the intricacies involved in court trials as they affect traffic infractions that claim lives.
Why is it difficult or impossible to convict? Or why the snail speed in convicting such drivers? Why must a driver who caused the death of others not be slammed behind bars and in addition have his driver’s licence withdrawn, was the poser thrown at me by Martins.
In the absence of my legal friend, I reached out to another whose views I admire and popped the million-dollar question on the difficulty in convicting killer-drivers. Why is it difficult to secure convictions in Nigeria in cases where death results from dangerous/unsafe driving practices? I asked. Before you get excited that you now have the opportunity for a pro bono under my watch, kindly note that these views were provided by him during my legal lessons, 101 Class. He began by stating that it is the law that traffic offences generally speaking are strict liability offences.
However, there are exceptions as can be seen from the Nigerian Evidence Act as regards speeding offences that require corroboration and some other such offences viewed as more serious traffic offences. More so, trials in cases where death results from dangerous driving or other unsafe driving practices even though are charged under the various road traffic laws or the FRSC Act, depending on the prosecuting agency, the standard and burden of proof are usually as high as it is in “criminal trials”. It is to be noted that there is this distinction without a difference wherein traffic offences are viewed from the prism of quasi-criminal matters.
The courts, he continued, have held severally that there are ingredients that must be established in cases of death occasioned by dangerous or unsafe driving. But to address the main issue raised above frontally, it is safe to say that the major militating factors include, but are not limited to poor crash investigation and evidence gathering/preservation, poor or outright lack of data or driver’s driving history/vehicle maintenance history – the laws provide for statutory returns that must be made to the various regulatory agencies but are sadly mostly observed in the breach.
Others include poor prosecutorial skills, wherein most cases are prosecuted at the Magistrate Court by non-lawyers thereby giving room for defence lawyers who are vaster in the knowledge and the application of law to exploit such loopholes to the advantage of a defendant. He concluded by stating that the want or dearth of expert evidence during such trials among others are critical hiccups. Further to the above, he said that the prosecution must prove the following: that the defendant’s manner of driving was reckless or dangerous and also that the substantial cause of death is attributed to the defendant’s reckless or dangerous driving, and lastly that the crash occurred on a Federal Highway (if charge is brought under the Federal Highway Act)
In particular reference to the FRSC, the powers to prosecute drivers who cause death by dangerous driving is specifically provided for in section 20 thereof which prescribes a prison term of not less than one year but not exceeding seven years.
While all these turenchi (Hausa word for grammar) have further confused me, I think I should quit the class and focus on how to navigate the herculean task of checking increasing infractions such as excessive speeding, dangerous driving, night journey which is resurging as well as driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages and drugs.