CORAM
A.I. KATSINA-ALU
O. ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALL JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U.A. KALGO
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)
PARTIES
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA APPELLANTS
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this appeal, issue with regard to the procedure for the prosecution of accused persons, who in the course of the trial changed their plea by withdrawing pleas of not guilty and substituting thereof, the plea of guilty, would be considered.
HELD
The Appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in holding that the Appellant dealt in 400grammes of Heroin even though the prosecution had failed to discharge the onus placed upon it to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (2) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Exhibit 52 was properly evaluated as a confessional statement by the learned trial judge notwithstanding its retraction at the trial by the appellant. (3) Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in convicting the appellant under Section 10(c) NDLEA Decree No. 20 of 1994 amended by Decree No. 22 of 1996 even when the said legislation was inconsistent with Section 33 of the 1979 constitution and thereby denied the appellant the right to fair hearing as upheld by the Court of Appeal”.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONVICTION UPON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
In affirming the Court below, it is pertinent to observe that it has long been established by several decisions of this Court that an accused will not be convicted upon a statement that is not admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority.
CASES CITED
Nwangbomu v. State (1994) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 327) 380 at 397|Ogoola v. State (1991) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 175) 509 at 531.|Edamine v. The State (1996) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 438) 530 at 541|Onwumere v. The State (1991) L.R.C.N. 984 at 987, (1991) 1 N.S.C. 606.|Akpan v. The State (1990) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 160) 701.|R v. Ndo (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 35|R v.Ebong (1967) 12 W.A.C.A. 139.|Erekanure v. State (1993) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 294) 385 at 393.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NDLEA Decree No. 48 of 1989|Evidence Act|Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Act. Cap 410 Laws of the Federation 1990 (Amended by Decree 22 of 1996)|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT