CORAM
PARTIES
ALI MUSA APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned at the Federal High Court, alongside seven (7) others on a seven-count charge, for which he (as the 8th accused person) pleaded not guilty. During the trial at the lower court, the Prosecution called ten (10) witnesses, all officers of the NDLEA. While at the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant entered his defence and testified as the DW2 wherein he denied being at the scene of the crime on 21/3/12. The other Defendants also while giving evidence in their respective defences, denied committing the offences charged. At the end of the trial, the lower court found the Appellant guilty of Conspiracy and Obstruction of officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) from carrying out their lawful duty for which he was convicted and sentenced. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant has appealed against same to this court, contending that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and that the trial court was wrong in its conclusion and decision.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the trial court was right to have found the appellant guilty of the offences for which he was tried and convicted, considering the circumstances of this case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHETHER A COURT CAN ACT ON A MERE RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“The learned trial judge observed the witnesses and saw their demeanor before ascribing probative value to their evidence and admitted the appellant’s statement in evidence, which is not perverse as rightly argued by the learned counsel to the Respondent. The wrong procedure was not followed and the finding was supported by evidence therefore, this court would not tamper with same. The confessional statement was rightly admitted in evidence as Exhibits PW6A and PW6B, and became part of the case of the prosecution which the learned trial judge rightly considered in its judgment. The fact that the statement was retracted is immaterial otherwise, any accused person that confesses to having committed a crime would easily retract such statement to go scot free by the mere retraction of his confessional statement. See, Akpan Vs. State (2001) LPELR – 383 (SC) P.21, Paragraphs C-E; (2001) 15 NWLR (PT 737) P. 745, Idowu Vs. State (2000) LPELR – 1429 (SC) PP. 44-45, Paragraphs F-A, Mumuni & Ors Vs. State (1975) LPELR – 1926 (SC) P. 18, Paragraphs D-E and Darlington Vs. FRN (2018) LPELR 43850 (SC) PP. 17-18, Paragraphs D-A”. –
PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
“On proof of the prosecution’s case, the burden of proof on the prosecution is not to prove its case beyond every iota of doubt but, beyond reasonable doubt”. –
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – WHAT CONSTITUTES THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“With the offence of conspiracy, it is seldom proved by direct evidence. The offence was adequately defined by the learned counsel to the Respondent as the agreement by two or more people to do an act at once, on a future date or certain time in agreement with a common goal to achieve their objective, then the offence is complete. The substantive offence need not have been committed. To omit to do an act criminally also constitutes the offence. See, State Vs. Salawu (2011) LPELR – 8252 (SC) PP. 38 – 39, Paragraphs E – A, Kayode Vs. State (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC) P. 32, Paragraphs A – B, ACN & Anor Vs. INEC & Ors (2013) LPELR – 20300 (SC) P. 18, Paragraphs C-D and Adeleke Vs. State (2013) LPELR – 2097 (SC) PP. 38-39, Paragraphs G-A. The important thing is the common intent of the defendants working in common to achieve their common criminal objective where the accused person is pinned to the scene of the offence charged the act of each of them in furtherance of their common criminal intention is taken to be the act of each and every one of them”.-
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI TIMEOUSLY
“Failure to raise the defence of alibi timeously rendered same unsuccessful. See, Ehimiyein Vs. State (2016) LPELR – 40841 (SC) PP. 17-18, Paragraphs D-B; Adeyemi Vs. State (2017) LPELR – 42584 (SC) P.16, Paragraphs A-D, Abdullahi Vs. State (2018) LPELR-44491 (CA) PP. 39 – 40, Paragraphs D – A, Eyisi Vs. The State (2000) 15 NWLR (PT. 691) 555 at 596 and Salami Vs. The State (1998) 3 NWLR (PT. 85) 670 at 677.” –
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Nil|