The Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice in Kwara State, on Thursday, said it had taken over the prosecution of a certain ‘preacher’, Gabriel Josaya, who was caught with human heads and charged with ‘unlawfully getting into a Muslim Cemetery at Osere area of Ilorin, the state capital.’
DAILY POST recalls that Josaya, the Ilorin-based prophet and founder of St. Moses Orimolade Cherubim and Seraphim Church, alongside two others, were on February 16, remanded in prison for allegedly being in possession of human skulls.
The duo was also accused of selling human skulls.
At the court hearing on the said date, the police prosecutor, Sergeant A. Seye, had told the Magistrates’ Court sitting in Ilorin that the information that led to the arrest of the accused was received on February 5 but that the accused had been on the job since 2009.
The prosecutor said the accused were said to have regularly gained access to the popular Muslim Cemetery in the area since 2009 where they were alleged to have regularly removed some human skulls for sale to various customers at the rate of N8, 000 per skull.
“Josaya, aka Eli-Wakuku, was charged along with one Gabriel Moyosore and Yinusa Ayinla for criminal conspiracy, criminal trespass and unlawful possession of human head, contrary to sections 97, 348, 219 of penal code law,” the prosecutor had said.
“The fourth accused, identified as Alfa Alaba Isiaka, is at large,” the prosecutor said, adding that, ”the accused sold a skull for between N6, 000 and N8, 000.”
The accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the offences.
However, the office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice in the state through an Assistant State Prosecutor, Ayoola Akande, disclosed this at the resumed hearing of the case before an Ilorin Magistrate Court yesterday.
Akande announced his appearance and total takeover of the case from the state Police Command.
The Chief Magistrate, Mrs. K. A. Yahaya, however, ordered the accused to be remanded in prison custody, and adjourned the matter till March 24.
Yahaya ruled that the ‘total takeover’ of the case as earlier mentioned had been granted.
Comments