CORAM

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JSC

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JSC

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JSC

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JSC

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR JSC

PARTIES

DAVID AHAMEFULA

APPELLANTS 

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF, MURDER, JOINT CRIMINAL LIABILITY, CRIMINAL CODE, ALIBI

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around violent events that occurred in the Lokpanta community on January 4–5, 2007. A conflict arose between the Lokpanta Youth Movement (supported by the women of the community) and the Lokpanta Development Union. The Youth Movement had allegedly become notorious for acts of violence and lawlessness, including torture, extrajudicial trials, and killings, and had resolved to wrest control of the community from the Development Union.

Following a demonstration by women in support of the Youth Movement on January 4, 2007, tensions escalated into violence. Three executive members of the Development Union were abducted from their homes and taken to the market square, where they were severely beaten. They were then transported on motorcycles to a remote hill at the Lokpanta–Awgu border, where they were brutally tortured, murdered, dismembered, and their bodies set ablaze. A fourth individual (PW4), who was taken alongside the deceased persons, managed to escape and later testified at the trial.

The prosecution led evidence that the Appellant, as a member of the Youth Movement, was actively involved in the events leading to the deaths. Witnesses placed him at the scene, participating in the abduction, torture, and subsequent murder of the deceased persons. In his defense, the Appellant relied on an alibi, claiming that he was at Jideofor Hospital in Awgu, Enugu State, at the material time.

The Appellant, alongside eighteen others, was arraigned before the High Court of Abia State on a three-count charge of murder. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death on July 1, 2010, while discharging and acquitting several of the co-accused persons. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court on April 27, 2012.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court below was right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant for the offence of murder.

2. Whether the Court below was right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant for murder based on Sections 8 and 9 of the Criminal Code, when there was no believabl direct or circumstantial evidence to support the finding.

3. Whether the Court below was right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant when the alibi raised by the Appellant was not demolished by the prosecution.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – BURDEN ON PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:

“It is well-settled that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as stipulated in Sections 135(1) and 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must establish: (1) the death of the deceased; (2) that the death was caused by the act of the accused; and (3) that the act was done with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, as held in Sule v. State [2009] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

INCONSISTENCIES IN WITNESS TESTIMONY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN MINOR DISCREPANCIES AND MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS:

“The law distinguishes between minor inconsistencies and material contradictions. Minor discrepancies, which are inevitable given human fallibility in recounting events and the tendentious nature of human memory, do not necessarily undermine the credibility of a witness. As this Court held in Galadima v. State (2017) LPELR-43469 (SC), immaterial contradictions do not vitiate a case where the evidence is sufficient and consistent on the material facts.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

OMISSIONS IN POLICE STATEMENTS – EFFECT ON CREDIBILITY OF COURT TESTIMONY:

“A fortiori, the fact that a witness did not state a particular fact in his statement recorded by the Police does not, in the absence of other vitiating elements, on its own render his testimony in Court unreliable or worthless. At all times, the fickle, fragile, and tendentious nature of human memory must be considered in assessing and determining the credibility of evidence rendered at the trial. Immaterial contradictions will not be sufficient to invalidate concrete and cogent evidence generated at the trial.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE:

“This Court, being the final appellate Court, will not readily disturb concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal unless it is shown that such findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or occasion a miscarriage of justice.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS – EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

“Where there is concurrent finding by the trial and the intermediate Courts, the Supreme Court must always accord respect to such findings and be circumspect in interfering with such findings, except in exceptional circumstances, like where it is apparent from the records that the inferences from established facts are patently wrong, or the findings do not flow from the evidence generated at the trial, or there is inappropriate appraisal of the evidence led at the trial. Except where any of these features is shown, the Supreme Court must resist the invitation by an appellant to tinker with the concurrent findings…”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

COMMON INTENTION – LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE:

“Section 8 provides that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence of such nature is committed as a probable consequence, each is deemed to have committed the offence. Section 9 further extends liability to those who counsel or procure another to commit an offence.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

INFERRING COMMON INTENTION – NO REQUIREMENT FOR DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EXPRESS AGREEMENT:

“This Court in the case of STATE V. OLADIMEJI (2003) 109 LRCN 1098, emphasized that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances and does not require direct evidence of an express agreement. In the instant case, the Appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the crime clearly demonstrated his shared intent with the perpetrators.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

DEFENSE OF ALIBI – REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS:

“The law is clear that for an alibi to succeed, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity and supported by credible evidence. See OCHEMAJE V. STATE [2008] 15 NWLR (PT. 1109) 57. The burden thus rests on the accused to provide specific details of his whereabouts and call witnesses or tender evidence to substantiate the claim.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

COLLAPSE OF ALIBI – WHEN ACCUSED IS PLACED AT THE CRIME SCENE:

“The law is well settled that once an accused person is fixed at the scene of the crime, his defense of alibi collapses, as held by this Court in IME DAVID IDIOK V. THE STATE (2008) LPELR-1423 (SC). The defense of alibi raised by the Appellant in the instant case is a sham and is therefore not deserving of any positive consideration.”

— Per Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C.

FIXING ACCUSED AT CRIME SCENE – EFFECT ON ALIBI:

“The law is elementary that once an accused person is properly fixed at the scene of the crime, his plea of alibi is demolished and the defense must fail. Clear, credible, and positive evidence of an eyewitness which positively fixes an accused person at the scene of the crime dislodges and destroys any alibi put forward by the accused person, and the failure by the prosecution to investigate such a plea has no negative effect on the prosecution’s case or on the outcome of the proceedings.”

— Per Jummai Hannatu Sankey, J.S.C.

DEFINITION AND NATURE OF ALIBI – PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF GUILT:

“Alibi is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition, as: ‘A defense on the physical impossibility of a defendant’s guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time; the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offense was committed.'”

— Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

RAISING ALIBI – TIMING AND BURDEN OF PROOF:

“The law is that it is not enough for an accused to raise the defense of alibi at the stage of trial. He must give adequate particulars of his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense to assist the police in making a meaningful investigation of the alibi. If the appellant said he was in a particular place, he must give a lead as to the specific place, names and/or addresses of those to contact, and the relevant period he was away from the scene of the crime.”

— Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.

PARTICULARIZATION OF ALIBI – NECESSITY OF DETAILED INFORMATION:

“It is my view that for the appellant to take advantage of the defense of alibi, he must give a detailed particularization of his whereabouts on the day of the offense, which must include not just the specific place(s) where he was, but additionally the people in whose company he was, who will corroborate same. The appellant clearly did not establish the defense of alibi.”

— Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, 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 Criminal Procedure Code

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT