CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKAINU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI(Lead Judgment), JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLA MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
AMINU TANKO APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant and 6 others were convicted and sentenced to death on the charge of armed robbery and conspiracy. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. He has further appealed.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
“(1) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have held that the offence of robbery created under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 not being in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative List is a state offence for and can be prosecuted by the Attorney – General of Niger State.?
(2) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have held that death sentence is mandatory on conviction under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act?
(3) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the trial court’s stipulation of manner of execution of death sentence passed on the Appellant in violation of section 1(3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap 398
(4) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the reliance of the trial court on the extrajudicial statement of the Appellant in his conviction despite all the irregularities?
(5) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have held that PW1 and PW2 are not tainted witnesses and that the evidence of PW 2 dispenses with the need for identification parade?
(6) Whether considering the ingredients of offence of robbery required to be proved under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act, the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to hold that the prosecution needed not to have tendered the alleged weapons used in the robbery.?
7) Whether the Hon. Court of Appeal was right to have held that there were no material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witness more particularly as it relates to the identity of the Appellant, capable of rendering them unreliable”?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE SUPREME COURT CAN REVISIT ITS DECISIONS
When over a period of time a judgment or judgments of this court already delivered are patently seen not to be meeting the course of desired justice, this court, again, upon an invitation to it through an appeal or appeals, similar in terms of facts, to the previous judgment or judgments, will readily revisit such decision with a view to varying same, or overruling same and setting same aside. Per ADEREMI, JSC
FACTORS A JUDGE MAY CONSIDER IN PASSING A SENTENCE
Where the sentence prescribed upon conviction in a criminal charge is a term of years of imprisonment, then some extenuating factors such the age of the convict, whether he is a first offender etc can be taken into consideration by the trial judge in passing the sentence on the convict. Per ADEREMI, JSC
CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF POWERS
It is by it (the Constitution) that the validity of any laws, rules or enactment for the governance of any part of the country will always be tested. It follows therefore, that all powers; be they legislative, executive and judicial, must ultimately be traced or predicated on the Constitution for the determination of their validity. Per ADEREMI, JSC
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE FINAL
The decisions of the Supreme Court, the apex court of the land, are final forever and not appellable not withstanding any error in the proceedings. Per ADEREMI, JSC
JURISDICTION IN ROBBERY CASES
Not only does a State High Court have the jurisdiction to try cases relating to armed robbery, the officials of the Ministry of Justice of a State are eminently qualified to prosecute the offence of armed robbery in any High Court of a State. Per ADEREMI, JSC
MEANING OF ARMED ROBBERY
Armed robbery means simply stealing plus violence, used or threatened. Per ADEREMI, JSC
JURISDICTION IN ROBBERY CASES
Both the Federal and the State Government can legislate on robbery. Per ADEREMI, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Albert Ike v. The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.378) 393
2. Aruna v. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.155) 125
3. A.G. Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187
4. C.C.B. (Nig.) Plc. v. A.G. Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt.261) 528
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398