Court suspends hearing in alleged death threat case amid fresh custody suit

A Shari’a Court sitting in Magajin Gari, Kaduna, on Thursday suspended proceedings in a case involving alleged death threats against two children after the complainant indicated her intention to pursue a separate custody matter.

The complainant, Rumaisa’u Yunusa, had accused her former co-wife, Maryam Sulaiman, of threatening the lives of her two children during a telephone conversation.

Yunusa told the court that the incident occurred after she visited the children at their school following a custody ruling that granted their father custody of them.

According to her, the children complained of hunger during the visit, prompting her to buy food for them.

She alleged that shortly after the visit, Sulaiman called her on the telephone and warned that it would be the last time she would see the children, adding that she also threatened to kill them.

At an earlier sitting, the presiding judge, Malam Yakubu Abdullahi, asked the complainant to present witnesses to support her claims.

Yunusa proposed that the children testify as witnesses.

However, counsel to the defendant, A.M. Hassan, objected, arguing that the children, being minors, were not competent to testify on behalf of their mother.

The court overruled the objection and directed that the children be produced at the next sitting.

When the matter came up on Thursday, Yunusa appeared in court with the two children, aged six and seven, while the defendant and her counsel were absent.

The complainant informed the court that the children had recently been returned to her custody and alleged that they bore marks suggesting they had been physically assaulted.

She further told the court that she had instituted a fresh case before an Upper Shari’a Court seeking custody of the children.

Yunusa subsequently requested that proceedings in the alleged threat case be suspended, citing the ongoing custody proceedings.

In his ruling, Abdullahi ordered that the matter be placed on hold pending the complainant’s decision to revive the case should new developments arise.