Awka, June 1, 2026 — A High Court sitting in Oba, Idemili South Local Government Area of Anambra State, has sentenced a commercial tricycle rider, Makuachukwu Ezike, to death by hanging for the killing of a passenger during a “one chance” robbery operation.
Delivering judgment, Justice Lauretta Oyeka found Ezike guilty of murdering Jude Onwuegbuchunam, a native of Umuoji in Anambra State.
The judge held that the circumstantial evidence presented in the case strongly pointed to the defendant’s involvement, noting the abandoned tricycle and his escape from the scene as key indicators of guilt.
She further relied on the defendant’s voluntary confession, as well as medical findings which confirmed that the victim died from injuries sustained after being pushed from a moving tricycle.
The court consequently convicted Ezike of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.
During the trial, the prosecution, led by Mrs L.N. Umeozulu, told the court that the incident occurred on November 17, 2019, along the Oba–Obosi–Nkpor–Umuoji Road, when Ezike and two accomplices, who are still at large, allegedly operated a “one chance” robbery syndicate.
According to the prosecution, the group posed as commercial transport operators, picked up the victim as a passenger, and attempted to dispossess him of his phone and other valuables while in transit.
When the victim resisted and raised an alarm, the attackers allegedly pushed him out of the moving tricycle at high speed near Abidi Hall, Umuoji, an area where vigilante operatives were stationed.
He reportedly sustained severe injuries from the fall and died two days later in hospital.
The prosecution further told the court that Ezike returned to the scene the following day to retrieve the abandoned tricycle but was arrested by vigilante operatives and handed over to the police.
Five witnesses testified for the prosecution, including a medical doctor who conducted the autopsy and confirmed that the cause of death was consistent with injuries from the fall.
Although the defence argued that no eyewitness directly saw the act, the court held that a conviction could be based on confessional statements and strong circumstantial evidence where properly established.