A Nigerian lawyer, Charles Omole, says unless someone is trying to make an example of Bobrisky, the option of a 50k fine would have been sufficient for a first-time offender who struck a plea bargain.
If Posting via his X handle, Omole wrote
‘’I have been observing this case for a while now. The Six Months sentence is a punitive option of the Sentencing Guidelines. S.21 of CBN Act states a minimum of Six months in jail or 50k in fine or both. The option of a 50k fine would have been sufficient for a first-time offender who struck a plea bargain. Unless, of course, someone is trying to make an example of him.
Our elders have a saying: When a child spills expensive oil in public, the father does not smack her so that people will not say the price of the oil is what is influencing the father. However, weeks later, the child spills water in public; then, the father smacks her for both the water and the oil.
This chap must have offended someone powerful before, and they have been looking for an opportunity to nail him. Imposing the higher end of the sentencing guideline is unusual for a first-time offender who has plea-bargained with the prosecution.
Plea Bargains usually involve a sentencing recommendation to the Judge. What was agreed upon with his defence team? Did the judge ignore the agreed recommendation to sentence him? Depending on the answers to these questions and other factors, I see a solid case at the appeal court for a reduction in the sentence. His lawyers should appeal immediately. A major element of the law is proportionality.
In my opinion, this sentence is disproportional to the offence of spraying naira notes for a first-time offender. No aggravating factors are stated in this case to warrant a more punitive punishment unless some other agenda is playing out here. For instance, were his lawyers told it would be a six-month sentence recommendation in exchange for dropping a more serious Money laundry charge? We don’t know. Either way, it is a steep sentence for a first-timer.
This is purely my legal analysis of the case’s outcome, and it has nothing to do with the defendant’s lifestyle.”
