In Judgment delivered on March 27, 2026, in Suit No. TRSJ/29C/2023, the Chief Judge of Taraba State, Justice Joel Agya, convicted Mallam Mubarak Hassan for culpable homicide not punishable by death and imposed a 15-year prison term without an option of fine. The case stems from the death of 16-year-old Mustapha Ishyaku in Mutum Biyu, Gassol Local Government Area.

The record is complicated.

The Charge Sheet: Taraba State Laws and a Two-Count Indictment

The prosecution, filed by the Office of the Attorney General on June 20, 2022, charged Hassan under two distinct legal frameworks. The first count relied on the Taraba State Kidnapping and Abduction Prohibition (Amendment) Law No. 2 of 2019. The second count invoked provisions of the Penal Code Law of Taraba State 1997 relating to culpable homicide.

Court filings in TRSJ/29C/2023 state that prosecutors alleged Hassan abducted Ishyaku, killed him, and buried the body in a shallow grave near Dankuturu, Mutum Biyu. The date of arraignment is recorded as July 2022, according to the court’s cause list for the Taraba State High Court sitting in Jalingo. The indictment framed the case as both a kidnapping and a homicide, a strategy that, if successful, could have attracted the death penalty under the Penal Code.

But the two counts did not stand equally.

Why the Kidnapping Charge Failed

Justice Agya dismissed the kidnapping and abduction count outright. In his written judgment dated March 27, 2026, he held that the prosecution failed to establish the elements required under Law No. 2 of 2019 beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling pointed to gaps in witness testimony and inconsistencies in the sequence of events leading to Ishyaku’s disappearance.

That finding matters because the 2019 amendment law imposes stricter evidentiary thresholds, including proof of unlawful confinement and intent to demand ransom or exert coercion. No such evidence was sustained in court.

The defence had already targeted those weaknesses. Counsel to the defendant, Dahiru Modibbo, argued during final addresses that police investigators failed to call key witnesses and did not produce corroborating material evidence tying the accused to an abduction scenario. The judge agreed on this point.

One count collapsed.

The Homicide Conviction Without a Murder Weapon

The homicide charge followed a different trajectory. Justice Agya ruled that the prosecution did not meet the threshold for culpable homicide punishable by death under the Penal Code. His reasoning cited two specific evidentiary failures: the absence of an eyewitness account and the failure to tender the alleged murder weapon in evidence.

Those omissions are not minor procedural lapses. Under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence, particularly in homicide cases, courts often rely on either direct eyewitness testimony or strong circumstantial evidence that excludes all other possibilities. The judgment indicates that neither standard was fully met.

Yet the court still entered a conviction for culpable homicide not punishable by death. This lesser offence requires proof that the accused caused the death, even if intent to kill is not conclusively established. Justice Agya held that despite what he described as weak evidence, the cumulative record met that lower threshold.

That distinction decided the sentence.

Evidence Gaps and Investigative Questions

The judgment repeatedly references what it calls “flawed police investigation.” That phrase appears in the defence submissions and is acknowledged in the court’s reasoning. The absence of the alleged weapon is explicitly noted. So is the failure to call certain witnesses who could have clarified the timeline of events in Mutum Biyu.

Our analysis of the March 27, 2026 judgment identifies three evidentiary gaps cited by the court: no forensic linkage between the accused and the burial site, no recovered weapon presented as Exhibit P, and no eyewitness testimony placing Hassan at the scene at the time of death. These are not peripheral details. They go to the core of criminal proof.

Still, the court relied on circumstantial elements that it found sufficient to sustain a conviction for the lesser offence. The exact nature of those elements is summarized in the judgment but not exhaustively detailed in open court reporting. That leaves a narrow but consequential evidentiary base.

It leaves questions.

Sentencing Logic Under the Penal Code

Under the Penal Code Law of Taraba State, culpable homicide not punishable by death carries a discretionary sentence that can extend to life imprisonment, depending on the circumstances. Justice Agya imposed 15 years without an option of fine. The judgment does not indicate any mitigating factors such as prior criminal record or age beyond the defendant’s stated 27 years.

The absence of an option of fine aligns with the gravity of the offence. Courts in similar cases have treated non-capital homicide as requiring custodial sentences, particularly where the victim is a minor. The victim’s age, 16, is recorded in the charge sheet and referenced in the judgment.

The sentence sits mid-range.

Defence Signals Appeal

Immediately after the ruling, defence counsel Dahiru Modibbo announced his intention to appeal. His argument, already previewed during trial, is expected to focus on the same evidentiary weaknesses acknowledged by the trial court. That includes the lack of a murder weapon and the failure to call key witnesses.

An appeal would likely proceed to the Court of Appeal, Yola Division, which has jurisdiction over Taraba State. The timeline for filing a notice of appeal in criminal matters is typically 90 days from the date of judgment, subject to procedural rules.

The case is not closed.

The Taraba State High Court in Jalingo convicted Mallam Mubarak Hassan in Suit No. TRSJ/29C/2023 but rejected the kidnapping charge under Law No. 2 of 2019.

Justice Joel Agya cited missing evidence, including no eyewitness and no murder weapon, yet still entered a conviction for culpable homicide not punishable by death.

The 15-year sentence reflects a mid-range penalty under the Penal Code Law of Taraba State 1997.

Defence counsel Dahiru Modibbo has confirmed plans to appeal, focusing on acknowledged investigative gaps.

Why wasn’t the death penalty applied?

Because the court said the prosecution did not prove intent and key elements required for capital homicide. No eyewitness. No weapon. That pushed the conviction to a lesser offence under the Penal Code.

How can someone be convicted with “weak evidence”?

Criminal law allows conviction on circumstantial evidence if it points strongly enough to guilt. The judge said the lower threshold for non-capital homicide was met, even if the higher threshold was not.

What happens next?

The defence has signaled an appeal. That means a higher court will review whether the trial judge applied the law correctly and whether the evidence supports the conviction.

The next legal test sits with the Court of Appeal, Yola Division, where a notice of appeal is expected before the June 25, 2026 deadline. At issue will be whether a conviction for culpable homicide can stand without a murder weapon or eyewitness testimony, and whether the 15-year sentence under the Penal Code Law of Taraba State 1997 is sustainable on the existing record.