Making submissions on behalf of the death row inmate, Attorney Unoda Mack said there was no evidence on record indicating that Gorosang pre-planned the killing of his fiance on that fateful day. The trial judge had found that Gorosang pre-planned murdering Badiyi in that he waited for her in the dark before crushing her head with a chisel and finished her off by slitting her throat with a knife.Mack argued that when sentencing the convict, the court erred and misdirected itself in finding that Gorosang pre-planned the killing, as there was no evidence to support the findings.He further submitted that the trial judge erred when he found that there were no extenuating circumstances.Mack stressed that the only evidence available shows that the deceased was assaulted as a result of sudden provocation.
He also argued that in dealing with Gorosang's evidence, the trial court stated that the appellant's story is "more problematic and by his admission, he made inconsistent statements".He added that the judge went further to state that because Gorosang did not mention being insulted and pulled by private parts in the confession statement, then his testimony in court was false and an afterthought."It is submitted that the appellant's testimony is not inconsistent with his confession but goes further than what is in the confession. Further, the appellant never admitted that his testimony was inconsistent with his confession statement. He explained why his confession statement is not as detailed as his testimony," Mack argued. He stressed that his client omitted mentioning some things because he forgot, and was frightened after seeing some of the deceased's relatives.
