ALI MOHAMMED V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 23478 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 14, 2025

Suit Number: SC.107/2018

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

ALL MOHAMMED

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, CONSPIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT, IDENTIFICATION, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION, POLICE INVESTIGATION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONCURRENT FINDINGS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned, along with two other persons, before the High Court of Nasarawa State for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. The Appellant was the second accused person and he and his co-accused persons were alleged to have on the 9th of March, 2012 agreed amongst themselves to commit an illegal act and to have, while armed with sticks, robbed one Luka Agbawu of his motorcycle valued at N93,000.00.

At the trial, the Respondent called two witnesses, the victim of the crime and one of the Investigating Police Officers, and tendered the extrajudicial confessional statement of the Appellant in proof of its case while the Appellant testified as the sole witness in his defense as the first defense witness.

The trial Court found that the Respondent led cogent and credible evidence in proof of the offences charged against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and it convicted and sentenced the Appellant accordingly. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial Court’s judgment.

The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that the lower Court erred in affirming the decision of the trial Court to admit his alleged confessional statement in evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that while the Appellant’s written confessional statement was inadmissible as documentary hearsay (since it was given in Hausa language and recorded in English by someone who did not testify), there was unchallenged evidence of an oral confession by the Appellant, as well as credible eyewitness testimony identifying him as one of the perpetrators.
The Court held that the error of admitting the inadmissible written confession did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because there was sufficient independent evidence to support the conviction.
The Court affirmed that the prosecution had proved the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Court of Appeal, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant interference.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in its Makurdi Judicial Division delivered on the 21st of December, 2016 in Appeal No CA/MK/162C/2015, which upheld the judgment of the High Court of Nasarawa State delivered in Case No NSD/LF 78C/2012 on the 30th of June, 2015, was affirmed.

ISSUES

Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court to admit Exhibit B, the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant in evidence and ascribed probative value to it in convicting the Appellant?
Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy?
Whether having regard to the evidence led by parties at the trial especially that of the Appellant, the lower Court was right to have held that the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the Appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONSPIRACY AS AN OFFENCE – MEANING AND NATURE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means and that the actual agreement alone constitutes the offence of criminal conspiracy and it is unnecessary to prove that the act has in fact been committed – Opeke Vs State (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt 1758) 570, Sani Vs State (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1770) 502, Igwe Vs People of Lagos State (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt 1776) 425.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CONSPIRACY – INDEPENDENCE OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit an offence is a separate and distinct offence and it is independent of the actual commission of the offence to which the conspiracy is related. It is based on common intent and purpose and once there is such evidence to commit the substantive offence, it does not matter what any of the conspirators did – Saminu Vs State (2019) LPELR 47622(SC), Martin Vs State (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt 1716) 58, Fekolomoh Vs State (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt 1773) 461, Olarewaju Vs State (2024) 11 NWLR (Pt 1950) 493. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – INFERENCE FROM CONDUCT OF ACCUSED PERSONS

Proof of actual agreement is not always easy to come by and thus a trial Court can infer conspiracy and convict on it if it is satisfied that the actual person pursued, by their acts, the same object one performing one part of the act and the other performing the other part of the same act so as to complete their unlawful design – Ayinde Vs State (2019) LPELR 47835(SC), Ngbede Vs Nigerian Army (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt 1762) 1, Igwe Vs People of Lagos State (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt 1776) 425.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

INDICTMENT CONTAINING CONSPIRACY AND SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES – PROPER APPROACH TO BE ADOPTED

The proper approach to an indictment which contains a conspiracy charge and the substantive charge is to first deal with the latter, that is the substantive charge, and then proceed to see how far the conspiracy count had been made out in answer to the fate of the charge of conspiracy – Jimoh Vs State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt 1414) 105, Agugua Vs State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt 1573) 254, Afolabi Vs State (2022) 2 NWLR (Pt 1814) 201. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

ARMED ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS THAT MUST BE PROVED

It is trite that for a prosecution to secure a conviction for armed robbery, it must establish beyond reasonable doubt the cumulative presence of the following ingredients of the offence: (i) that there was robbery or series of robberies; (ii) that the robbery was an armed robbery carried out with firearms or offensive weapons; and (iii) that the person charged with the offence was one of the robbers or implicated therein. The onus on the prosecution to prove the cumulative presence of the ingredients cannot be compromised in any respect. The onus rests squarely on the prosecution throughout the case. Where the prosecution fails to prove any of the ingredients, the offence of armed robbery would not have been established beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person would be entitled to be discharged and acquitted – Musa Vs State (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt 1817) 285, Aliyu Vs State (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt 1818) 521, Mohammed Vs State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 385, Olarewaju Vs State (2024) 11 NWLR (Pt 1950) 493. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL DISTURB

This Court has reiterated in a plethora of decided cases that it does not make it a habit of disturbing the concurrent findings of lower Courts and would only do so if exceptional circumstances are shown – Oyeyemi Vs State (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt 1882) 181, Barde Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2024) LPELR 61647(SC), Ahiwe Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2024) LPELR 61674(SC), Mohammed Vs State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 385. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – NARROW SCOPE OF SUPREME COURT’S POWER

The power of this Court in an appeal against concurrent findings of facts is very narrow and it is restricted to considering only whether the concurrent findings of facts are perverse or not supported by evidence or whether there was improper or no evaluation of evidence that has caused a miscarriage of justice. This Court has no power to go outside the above periscope to consider alternative views that can be reached from the evidence – Adeyemi Vs All Progressive Congress (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt 1927) 63. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

PROOF OF GUILT – WAYS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

It is trite law that in criminal trials, the guilt of an accused person or the fact of his participation in the commission of the offence charged can be established in any or all the following ways (a) the confessional statement of the accused person wherein he or she admits the commission of the offence and which has been duly tested, proved and is unequivocal and admitted in evidence; (b) circumstantial evidence which is complete, cogent and unequivocal and which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused committed the offence; and (c) evidence of an eyewitness who saw the accused person committing the offence charged. Any one of the methods is sufficient – Hamza Vs State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt 1699) 418, Alao Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt 1702) 501, Itodo Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1704) 1, Iorapuu Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1706) 391, Mohammed Vs State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 385. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

UNCHALLENGED TESTIMONY – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CHALLENGE EVIDENCE UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION

It is settled law that where evidence of a witness is not dented, confronted, challenged, discredited or disparaged under cross-examination, it can be believed and relied upon by a trial Court in making findings – Olude Vs State (2018) LPELR 44070 (SC), Lanre Vs State (2018) LPELR 45156(SC), State Vs Oray (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt 1722) 130, Dondos Vs State (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt 1780) 24, Timothy Vs The People of Lagos State (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt 1787) 251. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN NECESSARY

The law is that an identification parade is necessary only where it was impossible for a witness giving eye witness account to recognize the accused person after the commission of the crime due to the circumstances in which the crime was committed. An identification parade becomes necessary when there is a real dispute about the identity of the accused person – Ndukwe VS. The State (2009) LPELR 1979(SC), Agboola Vs The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt 1366) 619, Wisdom Vs The State (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt 1586) 446. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

POLICE INVESTIGATION TEAM – TENDERING OF ACCUSED PERSON’S STATEMENT

Now, from the tenure of the case law authorities, the law, as a general rule is that any member of a Police investigation team can testify on the investigation carried out by the team and can also tender the statement of an accused person recorded by the team; the statement of an accused person need not be tendered by the actual member of the team who recorded it – Abadom Vs State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt 479) 1, John Vs State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1278) 353.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

STATEMENT GIVEN IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH – REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSIBILITY

Where the accused person renders his statement in any other language and it is interpreted and translated into English language, the Policeman or interpreter who interpreted the statement into English language must be called to testify, and if the Investigating team member who tendered the statement was not the one who interpreted the statement into English language, the statement will amount to documentary hearsay and it is inadmissible – Shivero Vs State (1976) 10 NSCC 197, Nwaeze Vs State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt 428) 1, Olalekan Vs The State (2004) 12 SCNJ 94, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Usman (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 1301) 141, Ifaramoye Vs State (2017) LPELR-42031(SC), Dajo Vs State (2018) LPELR-45299(SC), Obaro Vs State (2021) LPELR-56860(SC), Altine Vs State (2022) LPELR 58101 (SC), Iliyasu Vs Kano State (2024) LPELR 62748(SC). – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

JOINT COMMISSION OF CRIME – IMMATERIALITY OF SPECIFIC ACT BY EACH ACCUSED

This provision has been interpreted by the Courts to mean that where more than one person is accused of joint commission of a crime, it is enough to prove that all participated in the crime and what each did in furtherance of the commission of the crime is immaterial. The mere fact of the common intention manifesting in the execution of the common object is enough to render each of the accused persons in the group guilty of the offence – Kaza Vs State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt 1085) 125, Asimi Vs State (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt 1527) 414, Ude Vs State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt 1531) 122, Oladejo Vs State (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt 1630) 238, Balogun Vs State (2018) 13 NWLR (1636) 321, Njoku Vs State (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt 1771) 157. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.