Convicted cross-dresser, Idris Okuneye, aka Bobrisky has on Monday, filed a notice of appeal challenging the six months maximum sentence given to him by a Federal High Court in Lagos State.
Okuneye was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on four counts bordering on naira abuse.
He pleaded guilty before Justice A.O. Awogboro of the Federal High Court, Lagos.
Justice Awogboro, on April 12, sentenced Okuneye to six months imprisonment without an option of fine.
- Troops, DSS Rescue Six Kidnap Victims in Kogi, Including Naval Officer
Troops of Operation Whirl Stroke (OPWS), working alongside operatives of…Read More “Troops, DSS Rescue Six Kidnap Victims in Kogi, Including Naval Officer” »
- Dangote Refinery’s N2.15 Trillion IPO Closes Today as Investors Make Final Push
LAGOS, Nigeria — The highly anticipated initial public offering (IPO)…Read More “Dangote Refinery’s N2.15 Trillion IPO Closes Today as Investors Make Final Push” »
The judge while sentencing the convict said the judgment should serve as a deterrent to others fond of abusing and mutilating the naira.
However, counsel for Okuneye, Mr Bimbo Kusanu, filed a notice of appeal, praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the maximum sentence.
Kusanu is asking the court to replace the sentence with an option of N50,000 fine on each of the counts.
The counsel stated in the notice of appeal that the trial court imposed the maximum sentence on the appellant, who had no previous criminal record of conviction.
He stated that there were options to impose a lesser sentence by the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA.
He averred that the sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant was punitive and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the ACJA.
The appellant stated that the trial court did not consider the positive antecedent of the appellant, who did not waste the time of the court by pleading guilty to the charge.
He stated that the appellant honoured the invitation of the respondent on the first invitation.
He said that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and judicially in sentencing the appellant.
He explained that such an act had occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.
