The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has upheld the conviction of Peter Nielsen, a Danish national, who was sentenced to death in 2022 for the murders of his Nigerian wife, Zainab, and their daughter, Petra.
The appellate court dismissed Nielsen’s appeal, finding it lacked merit.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Respondent, the Lagos State Government, proved the offence of murder against Nielsen beyond reasonable doubt.
The court resolved the appeal in favor of the Respondent and dismissed Nielsen’s case.
The appellate court said, “The corroborative evidence of DNA also strengthened the circumstantial evidence against the Appellant.
“There was no proof of breaking into the apartment as suggested by the Appellant.”
“The missing exhibits as a result of the end SARS attack on the court does not affect the defence of the Appellant as he had ample opportunity before the attack on the Court.
The Lagos State Government arraigned the 53-year-old defendant on June 13, 2018, on a two-count charge of murder, punishable under Section 223 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos, 2015, which prescribes the death penalty upon conviction. Nielsen pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Nielsen was accused of killing his wife, Zainab, a musician known as Alizee, and their daughter on April 5, 2018, at about 3:45 am at their Banana Island residence in the Ikoyi area of Lagos.
In her judgment delivered on May 20, 2022, Justice Okikiolu-Ighile (Rtd) of the Lagos State High Court based her decision on the post-mortem examination conducted by Pathologist Professor John Obafunwa. He testified that the bruises found on Zainab’s head and neck were consistent with blunt trauma. The autopsy report also indicated that “tiny signs of bleeding” proved smothering as the cause of death.
The absence of oxygen, caused by smothering, was established as the cause of Zainab’s death, which the court held could not have been self-inflicted or due to epilepsy, as her medical history did not include such conditions.
Regarding whether the deaths were caused by Nielsen, the court recounted testimonies from several prosecution witnesses, including a housemaid, Zainab’s sibling, and two police officers, who testified about incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Nielsen against the late musician.
The court particularly described Zainab’s sister, Pepe, who was about 13 years old at the time of the incident, as a credible witness. She testified about a fight between the couple in 2017, adding that Nielsen had threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone about what she saw.
Justice Okikiolu-Ighile said,”Nielsen was the one who killed Zainab, Peter Nielsen was also the one that killed Petra Nielsen. Zainab had already predicted her death when she told their driver that this man would kill me. She told her step father Chris Madaki, when she went to Abuja that this man would kill me.”
The judge found Nielsen guilty of two counts murder preferred against him by Lagos state government.
Okikiolu-Ighile, held that the oral and documentary evidence before the court showed that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nielsen smothered his wife and daughter.
“This is one of the cases of domestic violence.
“The DNA analysis of nail scraping brought out the assailant of Zainab.
“Zainab tried so much to defend herself. The evidence shows that Peter Nielsen killed his wife and daughter.
“There is evidence before the court that there is a fight between the defendant and his wife,” the judge held.
“Peter has always domestically abused his wife which was shown in the police extract from Ikoyi Police Station.
“She didn’t know that her marriage to the defendant was void abi nitio because Peter was already married in Denmark.
The judge held “It is the judgment of the court that, you Peter Nielsen, is found guilty of the murder of Zainab and Petra Nielsen on April 5, 2018.
“I hereby pronounce that you Peter Nielsen, shall be hanged by the neck till death, may God have mercy on you,” she said.
But dissatisfied with the judgment Peter Nielsen approached the appeal court to challenge his conviction.
In the 16 grounds of appeal, the convict asked the court of Appeal to revoke his conviction on the grounds that he was not given access to material evidence and reasonable facilities for his defence.
He said that the trial court erred in law when his lordship convicted and sentenced the appellant despite not giving him access to material evidence and reasonable facilities for his defence, and also failed to access and evaluate materials that contained exculpatory evidence.
” It is a constitutional requirement that a defendant in a criminal trial should be availed of reasonable facilities and material in preparation and leading evidence for his defence.
“In this case the Prosecution collected and tendered exhibits which are the night dress of Zainab Nielsen and the jumpsuit of Petra Nielsen.
“Both the night dress and jumpsuit belongs to Zainab and Petra Nielsen respectively are material evidence in this case as they State who had contact with the deceased person on the night they died.
” PW 9, testified of the presence of an unknown male profile which does not match the appellant found on Zainab’s night dress.
“Also he testified that the appellant’s DNA was not found on Petra’s jumpsuit.
” The appellant called DW6, who is a forensic expert and requested that Zainab’s night dress be given to him in order to conduct tests and lead evidence thereon to establish the profile of this unknown male, but this opportunity was not given to the appellant.”
The defence also said,” The appellant during his examination in chief also requested that Petra’s jumpsuit be availed to him in order to lead evidence thereon and the opportunity to lead evidence thereon was not given to him.
“It is trite law that when a defendant is not availed of the opportunity and access to reasonable facilities and material to lead evidence in his defence particularly facilities with exculpatory evidence, it amounts to denial of fair trial.
“The court below in refusing to comment on the dress in the face of exculpatory evidence led by the prosecution, failed to assess and evaluate a very cogent piece of evidence in favour of the appellant.
” The court below cannot rightly convict the appellant in the face of lack of access and opportunity to use exculpatory evidence by the appellant and for failure to access and evaluate evidence raising doubt in favor of the appellant.
The appellate court however rejected the appeal of Peter Nielsen and upheld his conviction by the lower court.