CORAM

---

John Inyang Okoro JSC

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

Tijjani Abubakar JSC

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein JSC

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru JSC

---

PARTIES

---

EDET EDET JOHN

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ALIBI, MURDER, ARSON, CONSPIRACY

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant (Edet Edet John) was the 7th accused defendant among eight defendants tried in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State. The case arose from events following the death of Onwinokor Lawrence Esin (son of the 1st defendant Chief Lawrence John Esin) on December 31, 2013. The deceased (Michael Solomon Anwana) visited Chief Esin’s compound on December 31, 2013, and January 1, 2014, to offer condolences.

During the visit, Chief Esin accused the deceased of killing his son and ordered local youths to investigate the cause of death. The youths consulted nine soothsayers who claimed the deceased and Chief Esin’s first wife were responsible through witchcraft. Subsequently, on January 4, 2014, the deceased was tortured, tied up, doused with fuel, and burned alive. His house was also set ablaze.

The appellant was specifically identified by PW2 (the deceased’s son) as one of the perpetrators. While five defendants were acquitted, the appellant and two others were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, leading to this appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The concurrent findings of the two lower courts were affirmed.

3. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible eye-witness testimony.

4. The appellant’s purported alibi was found to be improperly raised and insufficient.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial Court properly relied on PW2’s unchallenged evidence which placed the appellant at the scene of the crime.?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy, murder, and arson despite alleged lack of proof of the offences ingredients.?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the trial Court’s decision was perverse and erroneous.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY – WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY:

---

“The law is trite that the evidence of an eye witness is one of the best evidence available in criminal trials provided it is direct and gives an on the spot narration of the event as it happened. It is nearly impossible to dislodge such evidence.”- Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

---

ALIBI – REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER RAISING:

---

“The phrase properly raised here means that it is the duty of the Accused to furnish the police with specific particulars of where he was at the material time, also the people he was with at the time, to enable the police move straight to that place to carry out investigation.”- Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

---

PROOF OF CRIME – ACCEPTABLE METHODS:

---

“The prosecution can prove the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt by any of the three following means or ways: (a) the direct evidence of an eyewitness or eyewitnesses; (b) the confession of the defendant; (c) circumstantial evidence.”- Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

ALIBI – DUTY TO INVESTIGATE:

---

“The prosecution had no onus either to investigate or disprove any alibi since it was neither properly raised by the appellant, as a suspect before the Police, nor did he tender any evidence in Court of his purported alibi.”- Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLATE APPROACH:

---

“This Court has reiterated in a plethora of decided cases that it does not make it a habit of disturbing the concurrent findings of lower Courts and would only do so if exceptional circumstances are shown.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CONSPIRACY – PROOF OF AGREEMENT:

---

“Proof of actual agreement is not always easy to come by and thus a trial Court can infer conspiracy and convict on it if it is satisfied that the actual person pursued, by their acts, the same object one performing one part of the act and the other performing the other part of the same act so as to complete their unlawful design.”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

DEATH – PROOF WITHOUT BODY:

---

“It is now well settled that a conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death or murder can be made without the recovery of the dead body if there is positive evidence that the deceased has been killed.”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – JUDGMENT ON APPEAL:

---

“By Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, a judgment appealed against enjoys presumption of regularity which is rebuttable.

Once the appellant fails to satisfactorily establish the error in the judgment appealed against, the respondent is entitled to a judgment affirming the judgment.”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – PROSECUTION’S BURDEN:

---

“It is trite law that in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with the vital evidence it can produce.”- Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

 

---

JUNGLE JUSTICE – JUDICIAL STANCE:

---

One is amazed that in this day and age – the 21st Century, our youths can be persuaded to mete out jungle justice on the spurious excuse that some witches and wizards are at play in respect of the death of any person. The rampant acts of jungle justice must be firmly discouraged.- Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

 

---

ALIBI – COMPREHENSIVE REQUIREMENTS:

---

“To take advantage of this defence, the accused person must give a detailed particularization of his whereabouts on the crucial day the offence which will include not just the specific place(s) where he was, but additionally, the people in whose company he was and what, if any, transpired at the said time and place(s).”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – TRIAL COURT’S DUTY:

---

“It is the primary responsibility of a trial Court to evaluate the evidence presented by parties before it, ascribe probative value to the evidence and then come up with a decision.”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLATE INTERFERENCE – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:

---

“The power of this Court in an appeal against concurrent findings of facts is very narrow and it is restricted to considering only whether the concurrent findings of facts are perverse or not supported by evidence or whether there was improper or no evaluation of evidence that has caused a miscarriage of justice.”- Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Criminal Code Law of Akwa Ibom State, 2000 (Sections 326(1), 464(a), and 552)

2. Evidence Act

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

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT