CORAM

---

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon Tsammani, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria •

Tijjani Abubakar, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria •

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

AJOZE IREGU

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL, FAIR HEARING, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ALIBI DEFENCE, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, CONSPIRACY, BURDEN OF PROOF, APPELLATE PRACTICE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Ajoze Iregu (the Appellant) and two others were arrested, tried, and convicted by the Kogi State High Court on 27th February 2009 for conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Sections 97(1) and 221(a) of the Penal Code applicable to Kogi State. They were convicted for conspiring to kill one Oziohu Iregu on 25th February 2006.

The prosecution’s case was that the Appellant and his co-accused stabbed the deceased (the Appellant’s paternal aunt) in several places on her body with a butcher’s knife, leading to her death. The motive was that they believed the deceased was a witch responsible for the death of the Appellant’s father and two other family members, as well as their lack of success in life. They allegedly planned to kill her to prevent further damage to other family members.

The Appellant denied the offence in his defence, stating that on the day in question, he left his residence at about 6:00 am to go to the market where he worked as a butcher. Around 12:00 noon, one Bashiru informed him of what had happened in his family compound. He rushed home to find his aunt dead, participated in the burial, and remained at home for seven days to mourn.

At trial, the prosecution called four witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements admitted as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. The Appellant testified in his defence and called one witness (DW1). The trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant accordingly.

The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 4th December 2012, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed and lacked merit.

2. The Court held that the Appellant was present in court during the proceedings based on the record of appeal and his own admission during trial.

3. The Court held that Exhibit ‘A’ was not a confessional statement and therefore did not require a trial-within-trial for its admissibility.

4. The Court held that Exhibit ‘B’ was properly admitted as a voluntary confessional statement after a trial-within-trial.

5. The Court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily through the Appellant’s confessional statement.

6. The Court held that the Appellant failed to properly establish an alibi defence.

7. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 4th December 2012 was affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they refused to expunge Exhibits A and B, which are manifestly inadmissible in law? (Grounds 2, 3 & 4)

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant when part of the proceedings was held in his absence?(Ground 1)

3. Whether the learned Justices of the lower Court were right to have affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant when the prosecution grossly failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt at the trial? (Grounds 5 and 6)

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ACCUSED PERSON’S PRESENCE AT TRIAL – MANDATORY REQUIREMENT

---

“Every person shall, subject to the provisions of Section 154, be present in Court during the whole of his trial unless he misconducts himself by so interrupting the proceedings or otherwise as to render their continuance in his presence in practicable.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C. (quoting Section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

 

---

ESSENCE OF ACCUSED’S PRESENCE – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

---

“The essence of requiring the presence of an accused person throughout his trial, is to adequately present his defence and question any fact raised by the prosecution at all stages of the proceedings. It therefore remains a fundamental principle of fair hearing than an accused person standing trial for a criminal offence, be present in Court throughout the period of his trial, and a violation of this principle renders the whole proceedings and judgment rendered thereon, a nullity.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY GOVERNED BY EVIDENCE ACT – STATUTORY COMPLIANCE:

---

“It is trite that admissibility or otherwise of evidence is governed by the provisions of Evidence Act, 2011. In other words, admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings before a Court in Nigeria is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act. It means that, a Court is bound to admit and act on evidence which is admissible in law, where such evidence has satisfied the requirements for its admissibility under the Evidence Act.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE – LIMITED GROUNDS

---

“It therefore means that once a piece of evidence is relevant to the proceedings and admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act, it cannot be excluded except by the provisions of the Evidence Act itself.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

PURPOSE OF TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL – VOLUNTARINESS DETERMINATION

---

“Most importantly, it is also settled that trial-within-trial is only used to test the voluntariness of a confessional statement, not what value or weight to attach to evidence. In essence, the issue of voluntariness is kept distinct from the issue of guilt, and this is done by insulating the enquiry into voluntariness in a compartment that is separate from the main trial.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C. (quoting Augie, JSC)

 

---

DEFINITION OF CONFESSION – ADMISSION OF GUILT

---

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C. (quoting Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011)

 

---

NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – UNEQUIVOCAL ADMISSION

---

“A confessional statement is therefore one which is unequivocal to the fact that the accused has admitted to have committed the offence charged. Therefore, for a statement to qualify as a confession, it must be direct, positive and unequivocal to the effect that the accused person has admitted committing the crime charged.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

JUDGES RULES PURPOSE – ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE

---

“The Courts must take care not to deprive themselves by the artificial rules of practice of the best chances of learning the truth. Thus, where a practice is not followed, a confessional statement should not necessarily be viewed with suspicion as the sole purposes of Judge’s rules is to ensure that confessions are voluntary.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C. (quoting Abiru, JCA)

 

---

JUDGES RULES EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY – ADMINISTRATIVE NOT LEGAL

---

“It is therefore settled law that, the rules, not being rules of law but merely administrative practice, therefore, do not affect admissibility. It may however be relevant in the evaluation and ascription of evidential weight or value to such confessional statements. Therefore, as stated earlier in the course of this judgment, admissibility is governed by the Evidence, Act and other Legislations validly in force in Nigeria.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENCY – CONVICTION GROUND:

---

“It is settled law that, if a confessional statement is found to be direct, positive and unequivocal, and duly proved, it alone can ground a conviction. It is also settled that mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person will not ipso facto render the statement inadmissible, worthless or untrue.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C

 

---

MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS REQUIREMENT – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:

---

“The settled law is that, for a contradiction to be fatal to the prosecution’s case it must be material and touch on an essential ingredient of the offence charged. Therefore, contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution can only avail the accused where it is found to be material, substantial and affects the essential issues to be tried in the case.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

ALIBI REQUIREMENTS – TIMELY AND PARTICULAR

---

“The law is settled that, an accused person seeking to rely on alibi as his defence, must raise same timeously. The alibi must give full particulars as to the time, place and the persons he was with. It must be raised timeously at the earliest opportunity, to enable the Police to investigate same.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLANT’S DUTY – DEMONSTRATE PERVERSITY

---

“Thus, to justify the intervention of the appellate Court on any of the grounds of the notice of appeal before it, the appellant has the task of establishing that the decision of the Court below he seeks to be reversed or set aside was wrongly arrived at… An appellant has a duty to show how the findings made the lower Court are perverse.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Penal Code applicable to Kogi State, Sections 97(1) and 221(a)

• Criminal Procedure Code, Section 153

• Evidence Act, 2011, Sections 2, 3, 28, 29

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Section 35(1)

• Criminal Procedure (Statement to Police Officers) Rules, 1960

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT