CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

ANDREW IGBOJI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER, EVIDENCE LAW, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, PROVOCATION, SELF-DEFENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, MEDICAL EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DYING DECLARATIONS, TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Andrew Igboji, was charged and convicted before the High Court of Ebonyi State on a lone-count information of murder for killing one Simon Ndiugo. The incident occurred on 29th December, 2013, at a child dedication ceremony. According to the prosecution’s case, after the ceremony ended in the evening, the Appellant and the deceased had an argument about a debt owed by the deceased to the Appellant. The Appellant hit the deceased with a stick (Exhibit C) on the head, causing the deceased to fall down immediately with blood coming out of his nose and mouth. When PW3 asked the Appellant to take the deceased to the hospital, he refused. PW3 subsequently mobilized villagers to contribute money to take the deceased to the hospital, where he died on 7th January, 2014.

The prosecution called five witnesses, including PW4 (the medical doctor who performed the postmortem examination) and PW5 (the Investigating Police Officer). Key evidence included the medical report (Exhibit A), the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit B), and the stick used (Exhibit C). The Appellant objected to his confessional statement by retracting it, leading to a trial-within-trial being conducted before the statement was admitted in evidence. The Appellant testified alone in his defence, completely denying the incident, but under cross-examination confirmed that Exhibit B represented the true account of what happened.

The trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction in toto. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining his innocence and challenging various aspects of the lower courts’ decisions.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, which had affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State convicting the Appellant for murder and sentencing him to death.

3.The Court held that all three ingredients of murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt: that the deceased died, that the death was caused by the act of the Appellant, and that the act was done intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence.

4.The Court found that the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit B) was properly admitted and could be relied upon, having satisfied the six-way test for retracted confessions.

5.The defences of provocation and self-defence were rejected as not available to the Appellant on the evidence.

6.The concurrent findings of the two lower Courts were upheld as unassailable.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the trial Court was right to have relied on the evidence of PW3 as a dying declaration of the deceased to convict the Appellant?

2.Whether the trial Court was right to have held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the Appellant for offence of murder and the evidence properly evaluated?

3.Whether the trial Court was right to have convicted the Appellant for murder on acting and relying on the Appellant’s confessional statement, Exhibit B?

4.Whether the defence of provocation cannot avail the Defendant?

5.Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court that the Respondent successfully proved the commission of the offence of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INGREDIENTS OF MURDER – ELEMENTS THAT PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH

---

“The ingredients for the offence of murder for which the Appellant was charged and convicted, that the prosecution must establish to secure the conviction of an accused person are no longer in doubt. They are that the death of a human being took place, that the death was caused by the act of the accused person and that the act of the accused leading to the death of the deceased was done intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

---

“It is equally settled that the burden of proving the guilt of a person charged with a criminal offence, rests firmly on the shoulders of the prosecution and the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence led by the prosecution leaves room for reasonable doubt in favour of the accused person, the offence is unproved and the accused person will be acquitted. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is however not proof beyond all doubt. It is proof with cogent and credible evidence leaving no rational doubt in the judicial mind of the Court that the accused person committed the offence.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

CAUSAL LINK IN MURDER CASES – NECESSITY TO ESTABLISH CONNECTION BETWEEN ACT AND DEATH

---

“With regard to this element, the law is that in a murder trial, it is essential that the prosecution not only proves the cause of death, it must establish a causal link between the action of the accused person and the death of the deceased. In other words, it is not sufficient for the cause of death of the deceased to be proved, the prosecution must also prove that it was the action of the accused person that led to the death of the deceased.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS – WHEN CONTRADICTIONS BECOME FATAL TO PROSECUTION’S CASE

---

“It is well settled that it is not every contradiction that will have a decisively negative effect on the prosecution’s case. For contradiction in evidence to be fatal to the case of the prosecution or lead to the setting aside of the conviction of an accused person, it must be material. A material contradiction is one which goes to the root of the charge against the accused person or which affects one or more of the elements of the offence charged. An immaterial, minor, trivial or inconsequential contradiction or one which touches on a minute detail will be of no consequence.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL – WHEN TO CONDUCT VOIR DIRE FOR CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“This is because a trial-within-trial is only to be conducted to test the voluntariness of an accused person’s confessional statement in line with the provision of Section 29 of the Evidence Act. Where there is no objection as to the voluntariness of a confessional statement and no representation is made to the Court suggesting that the statement was involuntarily made, there would be no need to conduct a trial-within-trial.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELIANCE ON RETRACTED STATEMENTS

---

“It is settled that a confessional statement being retracted does not preclude a Court from admitting it in evidence. Similarly, a retracted confessional statement can be relied upon and can ground a conviction, as long as it is direct, positive, unequivocal and clearly amounts to an admission of guilt. The first thing that ought to be done is for the statement so retracted to be admitted in evidence without the conduct of a trial-within-trial.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

CORROBORATION OF RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE

---

“In considering the confessional statement, it is desirable for the trial Judge to find some corroboration for the confessional statement. In other words, it is desirable to have some independent corroborative evidence outside the retracted confession making it likely that the confessional statement was made by the accused person and is true, before a conviction is based on the retracted confession.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

SYKES TEST FOR RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING TRUTHFULNESS

---

“Courts in this country have often made use of the six-way test in determining the truthfulness and reliability of a retracted confessional. The tests, laid down in R v. Sykes (1913) 8 C.A.R. 233, have been embraced and followed by this Court in several decisions… The six tests are: (a) Is there any evidence outside the confession to show that it is true? (b) Was the confession corroborated in any way or manner? (c) Are the relevant statements of facts made in it likely to be true as far as they can be tested? (d) Did the accused have opportunity of committing the offence? (e) Is the confession possible? (f) Is the alleged confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

PROOF OF INTENTION IN MURDER – INFERENCE FROM SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES

---

“Intention is hardly capable of direct proof, except the accused person confesses his intention and even then, he may lie. As the saying goes, the devil himself does not know the heart of man. Hence, intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is often inferred from surrounding circumstances such as the weapon used to inflict the fatal blow, the part of the body struck by the accused person, the force with which the blow was struck, and so on. It is also relevant that a man is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his actions.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

DIRECT EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT – ORAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DIRECT

---

“The law is that subject to recognized exceptions, oral evidence must be direct. This is the stipulation of Section 126 of the Evidence Act… By virtue of Section 126(a) of the Evidence Act, if oral evidence refers to a fact which can be seen, evidence thereon must be that of a witness who says he saw that fact. It follows that the evidence of the Respondents witnesses (PW1 – PW3) who testified to seeing the deceased lying on the ground with a bloodied nose and mouth was direct evidence and was rightly received by the trial Court and relied on by the two lower Courts.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION – ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL PLEA

---

“For provocation to avail an accused person, there must be evidence that: (i) The act done was done in the heat of passion; (ii) The doing of the act was caused by grave and sudden provocation; (iii) The act was committed before there was time for his passion to cool; and (iv) The retaliation by the accused person was proportionate to the provocation offered.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCE – INGREDIENTS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

---

“The ingredients of self-defence are: (a) The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter; (b) There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm either real or so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity; (c) There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; (d) There must have been a necessity for taking life… the guiding principles of self-defence are necessity and proportion.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – STANDARD FOR APPELLATE INTERFERENCE

---

“It is a notorious principle of law that this Court will not disturb or interfere with concurrent findings of the two lower Courts unless exceptional circumstances are shown to justify the disturbance or interference. An Appellant who challenges a judgment predicated on concurrent findings of the lower Courts, faces the onerous task of convincing this Court that exceptional circumstances, such as the perversity of the findings or miscarriage of justice occasioned thereby, exist.” – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Criminal Code

4. Penal Code

5. Court of Appeal Rules

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT