CORAM

---

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel-Justice of the court of appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu-Justice of the court of appeal

Mohammed Danjuma-Justice of the court of appeal

---

PARTIES

---

AUWAL SAIDU

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, SENTENCING, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, COMPENSATION, CONSPIRACY, THEFT, FORGERY

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Auwal Saidu, was one of three accused persons tried before the High Court of Borno State on charges of conspiracy, theft by servant or clerk, forgery, and using as genuine a forged document. The prosecution’s case involved allegations that the appellant, while employed as an ad-hoc staff at the Borno State Geographic Information Service (BOGIS), diverted revenue collected from land transactions into his personal account.

Saidu was convicted on charges of conspiracy, theft, and using a forged document. He was sentenced to 6 months for conspiracy, 7 years for theft, and 12 years for using a forged document, with an additional 7 years imprisonment in default of payment of compensation to the Borno State Government.

The appellant appealed the judgment, raising several issues, including procedural irregularities, the failure to record his plea for leniency, the prosecution’s failure to call a vital witness, and the length of his sentence.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice. It held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was fair and appropriate under the law. Consequently, the decision of the lower court was affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court occasioned a miscarriage of justice by failing to record the plea for leniency before sentencing the appellant?

2. Whether the failure of the prosecution to call a vital witness and the trial courts failure to caution prosecution witnesses were fatal to the case?

3. Whether the sentence imposed was excessive and should be substituted with a lesser sentence?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FAILURE TO RECORD ALLOCUTUS – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OCCASIONED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BY NOT RECORDING THE APPELLANT’S PLEA FOR LENIENCY

---

“The Court held that the failure to record the allocutus did not affect the validity of the trial or amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the trial court duly considered the appellant’s plea for leniency before imposing sentence. The omission from the records was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the proceedings.”
– Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

FAILURE TO CALL A VITAL WITNESS – WHETHER THE FAILURE TO CALL A WITNESS WHO MADE THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

---

 

---

FAILURE TO CAUTION WITNESSES – WHETHER THE FAILURE TO ADMINISTER A CAUTION UNDER SECTION 206 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT INVALIDATED THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

---

“The Court found that while the witnesses were not formally cautioned under Section 206 of the Evidence Act, they had affirmed to tell the truth under Section 205. The failure to administer the caution was not fatal to the proceedings, as the testimony was admissible and credible.”
– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

---

WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS EXCESSIVE – WHETHER THE LOWER COURT’S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE REDUCED

---

“The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and within the statutory limits. The imposition of a 7-year prison term in default of compensation was also proper, as the compensation order was within the court’s discretion under the law.”
– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT