CORAM
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Peter Chudi Obiorah Justice of the Court of Appeal
Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
ABUBAKAR MUSTAPHA DANKARA
APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALIBI, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, FAIR HEARING, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, Abubakar Mustapha Dankara, was charged with one count of rape under Section 1(1)(a) of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 for the sexual assault of a 12- year-old boy. At trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses, including the victim, his mother, the investigator, and the medical doctor. The appellant’s defense included his testimony and two other witnesses, his wife and an office colleague. Despite the defense’s efforts, the trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The appellant appealed the judgment, raising several issues, including the trial court’s rejection of his alibi, the admissibility of certain prosecution exhibits, the handling of his plea under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), and the failure to give him an opportunity to address the court before sentencing. He contended that the trial court erred in convicting him without properly investigating his alibi or following the procedural requirements of the ACJA.
HELD
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the failure to investigate the alibi raised by the appellant, coupled with reliance on inadmissible evidence, created sufficient doubt to overturn the conviction.
ISSUES
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ALIBI-WHETHER THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF ALIBI:
“The Court held that the prosecution failed to investigate the defense of alibi raised by the appellant at the earliest opportunity. The failure to investigate the alibi negated the presumption of innocence and violated the appellant’s right to a fair trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to thoroughly investigate all defenses raised by the accused.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS-WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT TO RELY ON THE STATEMENTS OF PW2 AND PW3:
“The Court ruled that the trial court erred in relying on the extra-judicial statements of PW2 and PW3, as they were inadmissible under the Evidence Act. The use of these statements to corroborate the testimony of PW2 constituted a miscarriage of justice.” – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
PROOF OF RAPE – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONSIDEREDTHE ELEMENTS OF RAPE:
“The Court emphasized that penetration is the most critical element of the offense of rape under the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of penetration, and the trial court improperly relied on the victim’s extra-judicial statement to convict the appellant. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
PLEA PROCEDURE –WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMPLIED WITH THE ACJA WHEN TAKING THE APPELLANT’S PLEA:
“The Court found that while the trial court did not explicitly record all procedural details regarding the plea, the overall proceedings were consistent with the requirements of Section 271 of the ACJA. The presumption of regularity applied, given that the appellant was represented by counsel, and no objection was raised during trial. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE SENTENCING –WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE COURT BEFORE SENTENCING:
“The Court held that the failure to allow the appellant to address the court before sentencing violated his right to fair hearing. This procedural error compounded the overall unfairness of the trial and contributed to the decision to set aside the sentence. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
:
FAIR HEARING
CASES CITED
1. Whether the defense of alibi raised by the appellant should have been fully investigated by the prosecution.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting and relying on the statements of prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW3.
3. Whether the trial court properly considered the elements of the offense of rape under Section 1 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015.
4. Whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of the ACJA when taking the appellant’s plea.
5. Whether the appellant was denied the opportunity to address the court before sentencing, violating his right to fair hearing.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available