CORAM
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE
HELEN MORENIKEJI OGUNWUMIJU
ADAMU JAURO
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM
PARTIES
BELLO YELLI
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the Sokoto State High Court for the Offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty. At the end of the trial, the Court found the Appellant guilty as charged for causing the death of the deceased Abubakar Magaji, by hitting him with a stick on his head with knowledge that death will be a probable consequence and was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Judicial Division vide a Notice of Appeal, wherein he complained inter alia that the trial Court erred in law when it relied on his extra-judicial statement, which did not meet the requirement of the law, as laid down in Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162. The Court of Appeal held that his appeal lacked merit and dismissed same, while affirming the decision of the trial Court. Further aggrieved, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court with a Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the learned Justices erred in law when they disregarded the already laid down principles of law as laid down in Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
Whether the learned Justices erred in law when they relied on the extra-judicial Statement of the Appellant, which does not meet the requirement of law as laid down in the case of Utuyorome V. State (2010) 43 WRN 162, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence.
Whether the Court below was right to affirm the trial Court’s decision
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – STATUS OF AN ADMITTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is settled law that a confessional statement that is properly admitted, is part and parcel of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution to prove its case against an Accused Person – see Egboghonome V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383 SC, wherein this Court, per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) stated –
“The voluntary statement of the Accused is part of the case for the Prosecution whether it contains confession or not and whether the Accused resiles it at trial or not. It is when the Court treats such Statement as part of the defence of an Accused that the confusion arises as to consistency of the Accused’s testimony. The most important aspect of the words of caution should not be overlooked, it says — “and may be given in evidence”. The prima facie refers to evidence at trial by the Prosecution that – “…decided to make a complaint against …(Accused) before a Court”. If in the trial the Accused asserts in his evidence that he never made the statement voluntarily (in which case the voluntariness will be decided in a trial within trial), or that he never made the statement at all (whereby voluntariness is not involved and a Court can admit the statement subject to the weight to be attached to it in general consideration of all the evidence at the trial), the statement should always be viewed as part of the case for the Prosecution. A fortiori if the Accused does not challenge the statement. Such a statement, once legally admitted in evidence, will be juxtaposed with all the evidence in Court, including the defence, so as to decide the general merit of the case. But such statement is always part of the case for the Prosecution.”
-PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CONVICTION – WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Conviction can be sustained on a confessional statement provided that the statement is direct and positive and such confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground and support conviction. -PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – NATURE OF GROUND(S) OF APPEAL
“Ground(s) of appeal encapsulate reasons why the decision complained against is considered wrong by the Appellant – Ehinlanwo V. Oke (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. II) 123. Therefore, a ground of appeal consists of error of law or fact alleged by the Appellant as the defect in the judgment he is appealing against – Metal Construction Ltd. V. D. A. Migliore & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 229 SC. An appellate Court is enjoined to examine the Record in relation to the grounds of appeal filed and issues for determination; and “thereafter determine whether such issues were properly decided having regard to the evidence adduced by the Parties and the applicable laws”- see Ndike V. State (supra).PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
COURT – IMPLICATION OF RELYING ON A CASE WITHOUT RELATING IT TO THE FACTS THAT IT INDUCED SAME
“It is a settled principle that “a case is only an authority for what it decides” – see Okafor V. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 120, Adegoke Motors V. Adesanya & Anor (1989) LPELR-U(SC), Izeze V. INEC (2018) LPELR-442U60(SC), and PDP V. INEC & Ors (2018) LPELR-44373(SC), wherein this Court added that relying on a case without relating it to the facts that induced it, will amount to citing the case out of proper context. In other words, the importance of facts cannot be overemphasized, as the facts determine the fate of any case — see Obasi Bros. Co. Ltd. V. M.B A.S. Ltd. (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 123. In effect, it is not enough to cite an authority, it must be related to the facts of the case. –PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is settled that a confessional statement is the most effective compass of navigating culpability of an Accused on the part he played in the commission of the offence, and different principles govern the admissibility of a confessional statement disowned, and the one that is objected to as involuntarily made.
See Obidiozo & Ors V. State (1987) LPELR-2170 (SC) and Solola V. State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460, wherein Tobi, JSC, aptly observed that:
A confessional statement is the best evidence. It is a statement of admission of guilt by the Accused and the Court must admit it in evidence, unless it is contested. If a confessional statement is contested at the trial, our procedural law requires that the trial Court should conduct a trial within a trial for purposes of determining the admissibility or otherwise of the statement. Once a confessional statement is admitted, the Prosecution need not prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the confessional statement ends the need to prove the guilt of the Accused.
In this case, the trial Court did not need to conduct a trial-within-trial because the Appellant did not challenge the admissibility of Exhibits B & B1 on the ground of involuntariness. He merely retracted his Confessional Statement, and it is well settled that a confessional statement, if made voluntarily, and even if it is subsequently retracted, is sufficient to sustain a conviction – see Solola V. State (supra), Nwaeze V. State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 1. -PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSIBILTY OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“What is more, this Court has repeatedly said that the time to object to the admissibility of a confessional statement is when the Statement is sought to be tendered – see Oseni V. State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 351, wherein this Court observed. –PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE MUST SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OFFENCE
“Even so, the general and more abiding principle is that it is better to find evidence outside the confession, however slight, of circumstances that makes it probable that the confession is true — Queen V. ltule (1961) 2 SCNLR 183, Edhigere V. State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 1. Thus, the Court is enjoined to evaluate the confession, the testimony of the Accused and other evidence adduced at trial. It must also satisfy itself that the statement passed the tests laid out by Ridley, J., in R. v. Sykes (supra), which have been set out earlier. PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – WHAT AMOUNTS TO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE?
Corroborative evidence, as stated in Rex v Baskewille (1916) 2 KB 658 and adopted by this Court in Okabichi V. State (1975) 3 SC 96, is evidence, “which shows or tends to show that the story that the Accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it was committed by him”. In Okabichi V. State (supra), Coker, JSC, further stated:
It is the duty of the Court to ascertain that whatever evidence is used or regarded as corroboration is independent of the evidence to be corroborated and is such as supports the story of the main evidence to the effect that it renders the story more probable that it implicates the Accused. No stereotyped category of evidence is envisaged and a great deal depends on the circumstances of each case for what may in a given set of circumstances amount to corroboration may not be so in another set of circumstances. –PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CROSS EXAMINATION – ESSENCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
“The trial process revolves around the art of cross-examination, the essence of which is to test the veracity or credibility of a Witness — see Section 223 of the Evidence Act, which says:
When a witness is cross-examined, he may in addition to the questions referred to in preceding Sections be asked any questions which tend to:
(a) Test his accuracy, veracity, or credibility; or
(b) Discover who he is and what is his position in life; or
(c) Shake his credit by injuring his character. So, where an adversary or the witness called by him testifies on a material fact, the other Party, if he does not accept it as true, should cross-examine him on that fact or at least show that he does not accept the evidence of the witness as true — see Gaji V. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583, Oforlete V. State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 415, Emoga V. State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 25, and Simon V. State (2017) LPELR-41988(SC). -PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CRIME – ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
“It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person’s awareness that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element. The concept of mens rea, which is Latin for “guilty mind’, developed in England around 1600, when Judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it is accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular crime varied then.
In other words, mens rea is a criminal intention or knowledge that an act is wrong, and today most of the crimes are defined by statutes that generally contains a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. Thus, a typical statute may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly – see legal-dictionary.thefreedictionany.com. In this case, the Appellant was charged with the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code and the Prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged act of hitting the deceased on the head with a stick was done with the intention of causing death — see Uturorume V. State (supra). -PER A. A. AUGIE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION
“My Lords, this Court in Mohammed v. State (2014) LPELR-22916(SC) Pg. 54-55, paras. E-B held thus:
“It must be restated that the confessional statement of an accused person where same is found to be voluntary and unequivocal provides the best evidence of the person’s guilt. Resiling from the statement does not make it unreliable. The Court can still admit and convict on a retracted confession if satisfied that the statement was indeed made by the accused person and the circumstances under which the statement was made guarantee the credibility of the content of the confessional statement. This Court has, as part of the very principle, insisted that before the trial Court convicts purely on the basis of a retracted confessional statement it ensures that some corroborative evidence outside the confession abides making the truth in the content of the retracted confession probable. See Ogudo v. The State (2011) 12 SC (Pt 1) 71 and Stephen Haruna v. The Attorney General of the Federation (2012) 3 SC (Pt IV) 40.”
In this case, the confessional statement contained in Exhibit B, B1 made by the Appellant and duly admitted in evidence through PW3, without any objection from the learned Counsel to the Appellant was corroborated by an eye-witness account of PW1.
As such, the confessional statement being direct and positive is sufficient to ground a conviction as it is probable. -PER H. M. OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Penal Code