Olagunju Olatunji, an investigating police officer, attached to the Ajah police division in Lagos state, has said the actions of Drambi Vandi, contradicted the ethos of the police force.
He said this while testifying in the trial of Vandi, the police officer who allegedly killed Bolanle Raheem, a lawyer, on December 25.
Olatunji appeared before Ibironke Harrison, the presiding judge of a Lagos high court, on Thursday.
Testifying before the court, Olatunji said he was the investigating police officer (IPO) in charge of Vandi’s case, adding that he was at Ajiwe police station when the deceased’s sister came to report the incident.
“In the course of my investigation, the statement of the suspect was taken with caution while the statement of the complainant was taken voluntarily,” he said.
“The case was later transferred to the SCID in Yaba for further discreet investigation.
“Before I transferred the case, what I found out during my investigation was that the defendant fired the gun and at the same time, his ammunition was not complete.
“As at the time of his arrest, I saw him with a civilian top on police trousers.”
During cross-examination, Adetokunbo asked Olatunji why he concluded that it was the defendant who fired the bullet that killed Raheem.
“There are three instances. When the gun was shot, the deceased’s sister and husband came down and held the cop and took him to Budo Hospital,” Olatunji responded.
“The second instance is that two out of the three officers on patrol duty held guns. When they brought their guns to the station, only SUPOL Vandi’s gun had a shortage of two bullets while the other one was complete.
“The third is that after the incident, the police officer hid under a staircase and he changed his uniform to mutfi with a gun at hand.”
The defendant’s counsel asked the witness whether it is out of place for a police officer to wear mufti.
“It is not part of the ethics of the job,” the police inspector responded.
“Is that the first time that you will see a policeman wear mufti and carry a gun?” the counsel asked.
“No,” he said.