Why The Alleged Murder Of Mary Habilah Is More Of Public Concern Than Parental Concern -By Isaac Asabor

The death of Mary Habilah has stirred widespread public interest, not only because of the circumstances surrounding her alleged murder but also because of the controversy that has followed. In recent days, her family petitioned the Inspector-General of Police, seeking the release of her body, which has remained in police custody since her death in Ebonyi State on June 27.

Speaking through the family’s lawyer, Kaile Yusuf, Habilah’s relatives said they had fulfilled all police requirements for the release of her remains but were still unable to bury her. They also reiterated their opposition to an autopsy, citing personal, cultural and traditional reasons. Mary’s father, Tanko Habila Wisdom, made an emotional appeal, insisting that the family’s only wish was to retrieve her body and give her a befitting burial.

Their anguish is understandable. No parent should have to endure the pain of losing a child, let alone wait indefinitely to bury one. Every reasonable person should empathize with the family’s grief. Yet, painful as the situation is, the case has reached a stage where it is no longer merely a family matter. It has become an issue of public justice.

This is why Habilah’s father should respectfully excuse himself from becoming the principal voice in determining how the investigation proceeds and allow the law to take its full course.

Many Nigerians may find that suggestion insensitive. It is not. Rather, it reflects one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of criminal justice: murder is an offence against the state and society, not merely against the victim’s family.

Unlike civil disputes, where individuals sue one another over personal grievances, criminal offences are prosecuted by the state because they threaten public peace and security. A homicide sends shockwaves far beyond the immediate family. If someone can unlawfully take another person’s life without a thorough investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution, then every member of society becomes vulnerable.

That is why criminal cases are styled “The State versus the Accused” or “The Federal Republic of Nigeria versus the Accused”. The victim’s relatives do not prosecute the matter because justice belongs to society as a whole.

In Mary’s case, the controversy surrounding the family’s refusal to permit an autopsy illustrates why the public interest must sometimes outweigh private wishes.

While cultural and religious beliefs deserve respect, an autopsy is often one of the most important investigative tools available in suspected homicide cases. It establishes the precise cause of death, determines whether injuries were inflicted before or after death, identifies possible weapons or poisons, and frequently provides forensic evidence that may either implicate or exonerate suspects. Without such scientific evidence, investigators may struggle to establish what truly happened.

Ironically, refusing an autopsy could make it more difficult, not easier, to secure justice for Mary if foul play is eventually established.

This is precisely why homicide investigations cannot simply follow the preferences of grieving relatives. The police owe a duty not only to the deceased’s family but also to every Nigerian who expects dangerous crimes to be investigated professionally and thoroughly.

There is another reason the case has become a public concern. Whenever a suspicious death attracts national attention, the public naturally wants reassurance that no one, regardless of status or influence, is above the law. Public confidence in the justice system depends on the perception that investigators are free to gather every available piece of evidence without unnecessary interference or limitations.

Allowing investigators to complete their work protects both the deceased and anyone who may eventually face prosecution. It equally protects innocent persons from wrongful accusations. Indeed, justice works both ways. If someone is guilty, the evidence should establish it. If someone is innocent, the evidence should also establish that. Either outcome serves justice far better than speculation.

Modern criminal justice systems deliberately removed murder investigations from private control because history demonstrated the dangers of emotional decision-making. Families naturally seek closure, but investigators seek facts. Parents understandably mourn, but prosecutors must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

These are different responsibilities. This is not to suggest that victims’ families have no role. On the contrary, they are indispensable participants in the justice process. They provide information, identify victims, cooperate with investigators, and may address the court through victim impact statements where applicable. But participation is not the same as directing the investigation.

The state bears that responsibility because society has collectively agreed that punishment should be administered through law rather than emotion. This principle also reflects the legal doctrine of “parens patriae”, under which the state assumes a protective role over vulnerable members of society. Children and young people occupy a special place in every civilized society because their protection is considered a collective responsibility.

Mary’s death, therefore, cannot be viewed solely through the lens of parental grief. It is also a test of Nigeria’s commitment to protecting life and enforcing its criminal laws. Equally important is the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Although there are allegations surrounding Mary’s death, no individual should be convicted in the court of public opinion before a competent court has examined the evidence. Public campaigns, however well-intentioned, should never replace due process.

The danger of excessive emotional advocacy is that it may inadvertently create pressure capable of influencing witnesses, encouraging speculation, or undermining confidence in the impartiality of eventual court proceedings.

Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. The foregoing objective becomes more achievable when investigators are allowed to pursue every legitimate avenue of inquiry, including forensic examinations where necessary.

In fact, Nigeria’s criminal justice system is certainly not perfect. Delays, inadequate investigations and poor prosecutions have often frustrated victims and their families. These shortcomings partly explain why many Nigerians instinctively sympathize with families demanding immediate action. Yet the answer is not to weaken investigations. Rather, it is to strengthen them.

The appropriate public demand should be for professionalism, transparency, competence and accountability from the police, forensic experts and prosecutors, not for shortcuts that could ultimately weaken the search for truth.

This is why Habilah’s father, despite his understandable anguish, should resist the temptation to become the public face of the investigation or to insist on outcomes that could inadvertently limit investigators’ ability to establish the facts. His role as a grieving father deserves compassion.

However, the role of determining how the investigation proceeds belong to law enforcement agencies operating within the confines of the law and subject to judicial oversight. Therefore, the greatest honour that can be paid to Mary’s memory is not merely a dignified burial, important as that is, but ensuring that every lawful step is taken to uncover the truth behind her death. If she was unlawfully killed, the person or persons responsible should face justice. If the circumstances prove otherwise, the public equally deserves to know. Either way, truth, not assumption, must prevail.

Ultimately, the alleged murder of Mary Habilah has transcended the boundaries of private grief. It has become a matter of public safety, public confidence in the justice system and society’s collective commitment to the sanctity of human life. That is why the case is more of public concern than parental concern.

Her father’s sorrow is deeply personal and deserving of empathy. But the pursuit of justice belongs to the Nigerian state acting on behalf of every citizen. For that reason, the wisest course is for him to allow investigators to complete their work, permit every lawful forensic process considered necessary, and let the courts, not emotions, traditions or public campaigns, determine where the truth lies. Only then can justice be said to have taken its proper course.