ALIYU ALH. TADIDO V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 42264 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Jos

Mon Feb 10, 2025

Suit Number: CA/J/272/C/2021

CORAM

Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abiodun Azeem Akinyemi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

ALIYU ALH. TADIDO

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT, CONSPIRACY, ROBBERY

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On February 18, 2020, at about 3am, a group of persons waylaid a passenger bus traveling from Kebbi State to Maiduguri, Bornu State, just before Dambam town in Bauchi State. The assailants beat up and robbed the driver and passengers of their valuables before escaping. The case was reported at the Dambam Police Division and subsequently transferred to the State Police Criminal Investigation Department. A few days later, the appellant was arrested along with three others. They were charged with Criminal Conspiracy contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code and Armed Robbery contrary to Section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, with the appellant as the 4th Defendant. All defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges. At trial, the Prosecution called four witnesses: the driver of the robbed vehicle, two Police Investigating Officers, and an Exhibit Keeper. The appellant allegedly made a confessional statement which he later retracted. He testified in his own defense and called no other witnesses. The High Court of Bauchi State convicted the appellant and three others of criminal conspiracy and robbery, sentencing each to two and seven years imprisonment respectively. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed.

HELD

The appeal was allowed.
The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of robbery and conspiracy against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found that both the retracted confessional statement and the identification evidence were unreliable and insufficient to ground a conviction.
The judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State convicting the appellant and sentencing him to two years and seven years imprisonment respectively on counts 1 and 2 was set aside.
The appellant was discharged and acquitted.

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he convicted and sentenced the appellant when the Prosecution did not prove its case against the appellant?
Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the evidence of PW1 corroborated the confessional statement of the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – MEANING OF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

‘Reasonable doubt’ means that there is some reason not to firmly believe or be fully convinced that the defendant is guilty or that there is a reason to believe that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty. It is a doubt based on reason arising from lack of evidence, a doubt which a reasonable man or woman might entertain, such as will make a Court to hesitate as to the correctness of a conclusion it arrives at after evaluating the evidence before it.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – CONSEQUENCE OF REASONABLE DOUBT

Once such a doubt or cause for hesitation exists in the mind of the Court, it is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must be given to the defendant. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TEST FOR DETERMINING RELIABILITY OF CONFESSION

To test the truth of the confession, the Court subjects it to the crucible of what has become known as the six-way test of truth which is as follows:

Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
Is the confession corroborated?
Are the facts stated in the confession true as far as can be tested?
Did the appellant have the opportunity to commit the crime?
Is the confession possible? 6. Is the confession consistent with other proved or ascertained facts in the case? –Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – REQUIREMENT FOR CORROBORATION

The law is settled, that a Court can convict a defendant based on his retracted confession if it is satisfied that he made it freely in circumstances that give credibility to the contents of the confession. However, it is always desirable that such retracted confession be corroborated by other evidence outside it which make it probable that the confession was true.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – NATURE AND REQUIREMENT

By nature, corroborative evidence must be evidence that has probative value and show or tend to show that the narrative that the defendant committed the crime is true, and not just that the crime was committed. It must be evidence which has legal potency and shows without equivocation that the defendant committed the crime. It must not only be independent of the evidence it is intended to corroborate but must also support the main evidence by rendering the story of the latter implicating the defendant probable in some material particular. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

PROBATIVE VALUE OF UNLINKED EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF DUMPING EVIDENCE ON COURT

The law is trite that evidence that is simply dumped on a Court without being demonstrated to be linked to any aspect of the case, lacks probative value and cannot be used for any purpose by the Court.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – FACTORS FOR DETERMINING CREDIBILITY

The guiding factors for determining the credibility of the evidence of a witness on the question of the identification of a defendant are as follows:

The circumstances in which the witness saw the defendant.
How much time the witness had to see the defendant.
The lighting conditions of the scene, if it was not daytime.
The opportunity the witness had to closely observe the defendant.–Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF WEAK IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

The importance of identification of an accused person cannot be overemphasized. It is only when an accused person has been properly identified as the perpetrator of the alleged crime that his conviction can stand. Where the evidence of identification is weak, the trial Court must give the accused person the benefit of doubt and go on to acquit him of the offence… – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING FORMAL IDENTIFICATION PARADE

Although it is not in every case that an identification parade must be held, it is mandatory to hold it in the following circumstances: a. Where the victim/witness did not know the offender before and their first contact was during the commission of the offence. b. Where the victim/witness was confronted by the offender for a short time. c. Where the victim/witness did not have sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the offender. d. Where the victim/witness did not identify the offender immediately at the scene of the incident or contemporaneously thereafter. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CONDUCT IDENTIFICATION PARADE

Therefore, this is a case in which a formal identification parade ought to have been held by the police. Failure to do so in the circumstances of this case is fatal to the case of the prosecution. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSPIRACY AND SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE

A count or conviction for conspiracy does not automatically fail because the conviction for the substantive offence has failed. This is because conspiracy to commit an offence is a separate and distinct offence by itself, independent of the offence of commission of the substantive offence to which the conspiracy relates.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

FAILURE OF CONSPIRACY CHARGE – WHEN CONSPIRACY CHARGE MUST FAIL WITH SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE

However, where the facts are inextricably interwoven and the same evidence is adduced or relied upon by the prosecution to prove both the substantive offence and the count of conspiracy, once the conviction for the substantive offence fails, as in the instant case, the conviction for the count of conspiracy must also fail. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

INGREDIENTS OF ROBBERY

The ingredients of robbery are:

That the defendant stole something that was capable of being stolen.
That the defendant used or threatened to use violence, before, during or immediately after the stealing.
That the defendant was the robber or one of the robbers. –Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.