The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has declared that Obina Christopher Ezeoke, a Nigerian man convicted of double murder, had his human rights violated due to the lengthy delays in bringing his case to trial. This decision has stirred controversy, especially in light of the brutal killings he carried out in 2016.
On the morning of September 12, 2016, 32-year-old Obina Ezeoke went to the home of Bervil Kalikaka-Ekofo, a 21-year-old student, and his 53-year-old aunt, Annie Ekofo, in East Finchley, North London. Ezeoke, armed with a vintage revolver, shot both victims at close range in what was initially described as a revenge hit.
Bervil Kalikaka-Ekofo, a psychology student, was shot in the back of the head while asleep. Her aunt, Annie Ekofo, was shot in the chest when she emerged from her bedroom. Both women died instantly. Although the attack was meant for Bervil’s brother, Ryan Efey, who had reportedly shared footage of an assault on Ezeoke on social media, the killer decided to target anyone present in the apartment that morning.
The killings were part of what prosecutors called a “vendetta of violence” stemming from gang rivalries and personal grievances, making the case even more complicated.
Ezeoke was arrested shortly after the murders but his trial would drag on for several years. Initially, the legal system faced several delays that kept the case in limbo. The first trial in 2017 was abruptly halted when the presiding judge was forced to withdraw due to severe back pain. In subsequent years, two more trials ended in mistrials. In May 2018 and again in March 2019, juries could not reach a verdict, despite a majority of jurors favoring conviction.
It was not until a fourth attempt, during which the COVID-19 pandemic caused further delays, that Ezeoke was finally convicted. The prosecution, after several failed trials, insisted on pushing forward with a fifth attempt, despite the defense’s objections, arguing that the delays had been long enough. In September 2020, after five years of legal battles, Ezeoke was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, with the judge recommending he serve at least 40 years.
Despite the conviction, the European Court ruled that the delays between Ezeoke’s arrest and his conviction breached his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe.
The ECtHR ruled that while the delays in the trial were beyond the control of the British court system and the government, the lengthy period of legal uncertainty had amounted to a breach of Ezeoke’s human rights. The court ruled that the delays constituted a violation of the right to a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
Although the European court acknowledged that the trial’s delays were not intentional or caused by any injustice within the legal proceedings, it concluded that the extended waiting time had undermined the fairness of the trial. The ruling did not challenge Ezeoke’s conviction or life sentence, which the court deemed lawful.
The judgment raised significant questions about the balance between a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the victims’ right to timely justice. Despite the breaches in the timeline, the court emphasized that the trial’s outcome, including the conviction and sentencing, were just and fair. Therefore, Ezeoke’s human rights violation did not extend to his conviction, and the court rejected his legal team’s request for compensation or for his release from prison.
The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has sparked a wider debate about judicial procedures and the impact of delays in the justice system. Critics have called the decision an example of judicial activism. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary in the UK, expressed concerns, calling the ruling an “extraordinary example of judicial activism.” Jenrick stated that the European Court had overstepped its bounds in its assessment of the trial’s delay.
Supporters of the decision, however, argue that the court was merely upholding the rights enshrined in European law. They point out that, although the outcome of the trial was fair, the delay was unjust and affected the integrity of the process.
During the trial, Ezeoke maintained his innocence, claiming that he was not at the scene of the crime and that he had an alibi. He claimed that he had been with friends on the night of the murders. However, forensic evidence proved otherwise. Gunshot residue found in the getaway vehicle, which Ezeoke had bought under a false name, linked him to the crime.
Ezeoke’s defense team argued that the gunshot residue could have been from an earlier shooting, but the jury did not buy this explanation. After deliberating for over 41 hours across eight days, the jury convicted Ezeoke of the two murders.
Despite Ezeoke’s claim that he had not intended to kill Bervil or Annie, the jury believed the evidence of his involvement in the killings was overwhelming. Ezeoke’s motive was reportedly linked to a history of gang-related violence and personal vendettas, with Bervil’s brother, Ryan Efey, being the apparent primary target. Ezeoke’s decision to kill anyone in the apartment, rather than just Efey, added to the severity of the crime.
The European Court’s decision highlights the complexities of human rights law, particularly when it comes to balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and the rights of victims. While Ezeoke’s case was undoubtedly delayed, many believe the ruling sends a message about the importance of fair trial procedures. However, the case also brings attention to the devastating impact of such delays on the victims’ families.
The ECHR ruling raises important questions about judicial systems and whether delays in cases like Ezeoke’s should be considered human rights violations or simply a part of the challenges facing overloaded court systems. For now, the question remains: should the human rights of the accused outweigh the rights of the victims to see justice served in a timely manner?
