COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. DOMINIC IYAJI OGAR

“The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. By virtue of Section 221 of the Penal Code, the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death are: a) that the death of a human being took place; b) that such death was caused by the accused person; c) that the act of the accused that caused the death was done with the intention of causing death; or that the accused person knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act. All the ingredients must be proved before a conviction could be secured. Failure to prove any of the ingredients would result in an acquittal. The onus of proof is on the prosecution throughout. See Adava v. State (2006)9 NWLR (pt.984) 152 at 167.”

“A preliminary objection is a challenge to the competence of an appeal or the hearing thereof. The purpose of a preliminary objection is to terminate the appeal at that stage if the objection succeeds. See Garba v. Mohammed & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40612SC.”

“It is trite law that if a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the proceedings are and remain a nullity no matter how well conducted and brilliantly decided. See Daplanlong v. Dariye (2007)8 NWLR (pt.1036)332.”

“It is lethargy at its deepest for a prosecutor to sleep for over two years before waking up to the necessity of an appeal in a homicide case like the present. An accused person should be able to heave a sign of relief not long after his acquittal and discharge. The prosecutor too should be able to forget about a particular case within a short time after it has been determined in the trial court or the Court of Appeal and channel his resources for other official responsibilities. It will also prevent the alleged offender from languishing in prison custody without knowing his fate. See again Adili v. State and State v. Omoleye (supra).”

“It is germane to place on record, pronto, that the respondent’s consent to the appellant’s application for extension of time to appeal was of no moment. It is trite elementary law that a party cannot by consent, waiver, acquiescence, connivance, or any guise, bestow jurisdiction on a court where none exists or ousts its jurisdiction where it exists. This court is bound, will-nilly, to kowtow to the Supreme Court decisions in Adili v. State (supra) and State v. Omoleyele (supra).”

“The law, ancient and modern is that in a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies throughout upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. Even when the accused person in his statement to the police admitted committing the offence, the prosecution is not relieved of the burden so that a wrong person will not be convicted for an offence he never committed. There must be evidence which identifies the accused with the offence. This is because the constitution presumes the accused person to be innocent until the contrary is proved. See Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution FRN, Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, Dongtoe v. Civil Service Commission, Plateau State (2001) LPELR – 959SC, People of Lagos State v. Umaru (2014)3 SCNJ 114 at 137, Igabele v. State (2006) NWLR (pt.975)100 and Abbey v. State (2017) LPELR – 42358SC p.34-35.