Segun Fabunmi was a former Police DPO.
A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja, Thursday, granted bail to Segun Fabunmi, the dismissed Divisional Police Officer, who allegedly shot a protester during the 2012 fuel subsidy protests.
Mr. Fabunmi, a former Chief Superintendent of Police, is facing a seven-count charge of murder, attempted murder, and causing grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Daramola, the victim, died on the spot from gunshot injuries.
In addition to the bail bond, Olabisi Akinlade, the trial judge, ruled that Mr. Fabunmi must provide two sureties who must, each, have landed properties in Lagos worth N100 million.
The sureties must be resident in Lagos, possess three years tax clearance payable to the Lagos State government, and one of them must be at the directorate level at either the state or federal service, the judge added.
In delivering her ruling, the judge had dismissed Mr. Fabunmi’s plea that his track records while serving at the Nigeria Police Force be considered in granting him bail.
The judge noted that he had been dismissed from the force.
“The most vital document is the medical report which indicates that he has renal failure,” Mrs. Akinlade said, referring to various documents tendered by the defence to justify their bail request.
“Only the living will appear before the court to face trial,” the judge added.
Mrs. Akinlade fixed July 16 for trial.
Mr. Fabunmi was arraigned on May 15 for allegedly murdering Mr. Daramola, 27, in January 2012.
Four other victims – Chizoba Odoh, 28; Joy Monday, 21; Abubakar Alimi, 41; Samuel Egbujor, 24; – sustained gunshot injuries from the police officer’s AK47 rifle on the same day.
Last month, the quartet were awarded N1 million each by Justice Bola Okikiolu-Ighile of the Ikeja High Court.
In her judgment, Mrs. Okikiolu-Ighile accused Mr. Fabunmi of “recklessly shooting and inflicting bodily injuries” on the protesters.
“The applicants averred that the second respondent (Mr. Fabunmi), whom they identified as a policeman, took a gun from another policeman and shot at them,” the judge had said.
“This fact was not challenged by the first and second defendant and it is hereby deemed accepted,” she had added.