My names are Chike Anthony Ukoh. I am a lawyer in Enugu, Nigeria. I have been contacted by the family of one Ezejie Prosper Ifeanyichukwu, who is currently facing a death penalty in Guangzhou, China. He is married to a Chinese lady and they have two little kids. His wife is attesting strongly to her husband’s innocence. Ezejie was arrested at the Gaungzhou Baiyun airport on March 12 2011 on his way back to Nigeria on the suspicion of possession of Heroin. Upon conducting a search, no drugs where found on him, but he was still tried, convicted and sentenced to death for possession of heroin. Continue…
He appealed his conviction, wherein the Guangdong Province Higher People’s court unturned his conviction on the based that there was no evidence linking him to the crime, but curiously sent the case back to the same lower court for re-trial. The same lower court has now returned a guilty verdict based on the very same facts and evidence, the Appeal court has rejected as “unclear, and insufficient”.
I am very mindful of the fact that there are very limited legal processes a Nigerian lawyer can initiate from here over a domestic judicial proceedings in China, to save a seemingly innocent man trapped in the intricate Chinese legal system. The only options left to be explored are social media campaigns and diplomatic pressure to call for a review of Ezejie wrongful conviction.
I do pray that Mr Ezejie Prosper Ifeanyichukwu plight be considered by your media outlet. I will forward along the judgments, their English translations, pictures and mails from his wife.
On the criminal complaint
Appellant: Ai Jizi • Prospero • Iraq Tiffany Chu library (EJEZE PROSPER IFAENYICHUKWU, hereinafter referred to as Prospero), male, born November 2, 1969, the Federal Republic of Nigeria citizenship, passport number: A1374656.
Appellant refused to accept the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2012) Spike-France early wordpunishment of criminal judgments No. 62, now appeal.
Revoked the original judgment, to ascertain the facts, commuted the appellant guilty.
Facts and reasons:
All the evidence cited by the trial verdict, whether it is direct evidence, but also
Is indirect evidence that the appellant was not sufficiently involved in the planning Pross, the behavior ofdrug smuggling, drug smuggling trial verdict for the appellant to be convicted and sentenced to death,apparently belonging to the facts are unclear, insufficient evidence.
(A) directly on aspects of evidence: there is no direct evidence
Pu Shi Adams appellant participated in the drug smuggling, which I never made the start to finish of anyconfession of guilt.
Judging from the time the case occurred, March 12, 2011, the second co-defendant 吴佩莹 atGuangzhou Baiyun Airport was arrested by public security organs, and searched out the heroin in hisluggage, the second defendant is the drug the direct perpetrators smuggling case; Prospero when the appellant was not at the scene, but in the same year on April 18, their preparation and their familiesreturned to Nigeria, was arrested in Guangzhou Baiyun Airport, when appellant was arrested, regardless in his possession, or in their luggage, there is no contraband, but without any drugs.
(B) indirect aspects of evidence: can not form a complete chain of evidence, but no
France from many so-called “circumstantial evidence”, the naturally presumed that the appellantparticipated in the drug smuggling, and the indirect evidence of the existence of loopholes, can not withstand scrutiny, does not meet the objective of common sense, we can not exclude a reasonable doubt.Briefly listed as following:
1, the second defendant confessed to their immigration records can not confirm each other, their
Confession was false.
Between the two, the second defendant’s confession testimony to their mutual classmate 李敏捷
Contradiction, the contradiction between supply license, not consistent.
3, on the argument of the appellant threatened neither factual basis, also
Does not meet the objective reality of life common sense. Appellant as a foreigner in China, his visa hasalready expired, never reckless, reckless to such an extent! In contrast, if the threats and other acts, the second defendant in a better position and advantages for police assistance, the truth is self-evident!
4, according to the second defendant’s confession, she knew her boyfriend was BC
(BUSSEY CHUKS), rather than the appellant’s name.
5, on Kelly to stay in Zhuhai hotel’s problem, although the hotel in
Sea passenger accommodation on the trip registration has written, “Prospero”, the name is not theappellant’s handwriting, the appellant’s driver’s license has been lost in 2009, so, in the absence of other evidence in the case of video surveillance, documents scanning mutual corroboration, the person is notidentified appellant.
6, in Zhuhai City 2 unit rental Minehide 1712 housing problems, according to the room
The landlord’s testimony, which does not distinguish whether the appellant lived here.
7, on two of the second defendant had mentioned March 2, 2011 in
Guangzhou R & F Peninsula Garden Hotel 9026 Tomijima next room planning process so that the seconddefendant to go to Vietnam, for the investigation of this problem, and did not follow the statutoryprocedures for the complete collection of relevant evidence, such as: open house registration, surveillance video to be evidence. Since the day of the incident from the time March 12 close, is perfectly placed toobtain the evidence. Defender in court also raised this issue, but did not get any response.
8, between phone calls and content issues, does not have a unique, 15015982281
Opening times this number can not be determined, and can not be confirmed as the appellant all.
9, on voice identification issue, the appellant in the court investigation, has
Clearly raised objections that the appraiser can not determine the identity, qualifications situationaccreditation bodies, need to re-identification and other requirements, were not get any response andtreatment in the trial and verdict.
In summary, the appellant that: based on the fact that the trial verdict is unclear, evidence
Insufficient, so the appeal, ask the people’s court of second instance to ascertain the facts, make a fairruling.
Guangdong Province Higher People’s Court.
December 2013 Day
Report: Two copies of the complaint on.