Actress and former beauty queen Ibinabo Fiberesima, who is currently serving a five-year jail term for manslaughter, was denied bail today by the Court of Appeal in Lagos. Even after one Victor Eden, in a six-paragraph affidavit of urgency stated that Ms. Fiberesima is currently recovering from a breast tumor-removal surgery and requires medical attention.
Victor had said:
“Her wound has not fully healed and as such she is afraid that her continued stay in prison may endanger her life, as she will not have access to special medical attention.”
The deponent stated further that it would be in the interest of justice and for her health to admit Ms. Fiberesima to bail pending the hearing and determination of her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ibinabo was sentenced by Justice Deborah Oluwayemi of a Lagos High Court, for reckless driving and causing death. She was alleged to have recklessly driven a car which resulted in an accident along the Lekki-Epe expressway, Lagos, causing the death of one Giwa Suraj. The deceased was said to be a staff of a Lagos State government hospital.
Today, the three-man panel of judges, headed by Justice U.I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, ruled that Ibinabo’s bail application was incomplete, as she failed to attach to her application, copies of the judgment affirming the five-year jail sentence imposed on her by a Lagos High Court.
Presiding Justice Ndukwe-Anyanwu said the only option left was to strike out the application or adjourn it to a further date for a hearing.
Consequently, Nnaemeka Amaechina, Ms. Fiberesima’s counsel, asked for an adjournment to enable him to correct the bail application. The court subsequently adjourned the matter to April 7.
Meanwhile, Ms. Fiberesima asked the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement of the lower court that was affirmed by the appellate court.
In her notice of appeal, she stated that the Court of Appeal erred when it affirmed the alteration by the High Court of Lagos State by setting aside the option of a N100,000 fine and substituting it with a prison term of five years.
The appellant further stated that the Court of Appeal erred when it affirmed the interference by the High Court with the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate’s Court.