CORAM

---

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo – Justice of the Court of Appeal

Lateef Adebayo Ganiyu – Justice of the Court of Appeal

Asmau Ojuolape Akanbi – Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

EHIGIE UYIMWEN PETER

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, WITNESS TESTIMONY, WITNESS CREDIBILITY, BURDEN OF PROOF, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Edo State in Charge Number B/99C/11 delivered by Hon. Justice S. A. Omonua on August 4, 2016. The Appellant (Ehigie Uyimwen Peter) was charged alongside three other persons on a seven-count charge. The counts specifically relating to the Appellant were Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which alleged conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004.

The Prosecution’s case was that on July 21, 2010, at about 1:55 a.m., PW2 (Mr. Osamudiamen Osawe) was robbed by a group of boys with guns who took two mobile phones including a Phillips mobile phone and the sum of N37,800. The robbers then proceeded to PW3’s room (Mrs. Osawe Glory) to rob her of her mobile phone, jewelry, and the sum of N8,000. PW2 and PW3 did not initially report the robbery to the police. However, on July 27, 2010, PW2’s son saw a Phillips phone with Osabuohien Idahosa (1st Accused Person) which he identified as his father’s phone stolen during the robbery. Osabuohien claimed he bought it from Kingsley Osagie (2nd Accused Person). Both were arrested and the case was eventually transferred to the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

The 2nd Accused Person (Kingsley) made a statement at the SARS Office on August 2, 2010, claiming that he went with “Oyimwen” (the Appellant) and one Lucky to rob PW2’s house with a rod and an axe. The Appellant was subsequently arrested, and his statement was taken by PW4 (ASP Asakpa Matthew). When this statement was sought to be tendered through PW4, the Appellant denied making it. The trial Court noted the retraction but admitted the statement as Exhibit G. The purported statement indicated that the Appellant went with Lucky Benjamin and Kingsley to rob PW2 and PW3, carrying a big hammer.

At trial, the Appellant testified that he was a bricklayer who was arrested on allegations of stealing cement from a woman he was working for. He denied taking part in any armed robbery or making any statement to the police. Nevertheless, the trial Court convicted the Appellant on Counts 1, 2, and 3, sentencing him to death on each count. The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Court of Appeal found that the trial Court erred in admitting and relying on Exhibit G (the purported confessional statement of the Appellant) as it failed to meet the basic requirements of a valid statement.

3. The Court held that the trial Court also erred in relying on Exhibit H (confessional statement of the 2nd Accused) to convict the Appellant without evidence that the Appellant had adopted it.

4. The Court determined that the Prosecution failed to prove the case of conspiracy and armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as there were significant gaps in the evidence.

5. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside, and the Appellant was discharged and acquitted.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether a confessional statement (Exhibit “G”) that fails to meet the basic fundamentals of a valid statement can be acted upon and relied upon by the trial Court as one of the grounds for convicting the Appellant on counts 1, 2 and 3 of the charge?

2. Whether from the totality of the evidence led in the case and upon a proper evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court was justified in holding that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt counts 1, 2 and 3 of the charge against the Appellant, especially when the Respondent’s case was riddled with self-contradictions, the confession of a co-accused was used in convicting the Appellant, legally inadmissible evidence was used in making findings of fact, and the totality of evidence led is consistent with both innocence and guilt?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY

---

“The Supreme Court stated the fundamentals of a valid confessional statement in CHUKWUKA OGUDO v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-860(SC) as: i. The cautionary words must be well written and signed. ii. The body of the accused person’s statement written by the accused person or by someone usually a Police Officer on the accused person’s directives, giving a detailed confession which will show clearly that he committed the offence for which he is charged. iii. The statement must be endorsed by a superior Police Officer and signed by the accused person.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

PROBATIVE VALUE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – ASSESSMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“It is trite that a defendant may be convicted solely on his confessional statement. That is, the confessional statement of a person is enough to secure his conviction for the offence admitted therein. The Supreme Court held in the case of MUHAMMED V. STATE (2023) 1 NWLR (Pf.1866) P.507 AT P.534 thus: ‘This Court has held in an avalanche of decided cases that a confessional statement properly made by an accused person is the best guide to the truth of the part played by him in the commission of the crime.'” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – EFFECT OF RETRACTION ON ADMISSIBILITY

---

“The mere retraction of a confessional statement would not render the statement inadmissible. It must be considered together with other evidences and circumstances of the case for the weight to be attached to it. See Nwangbomu v. State (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt.327) 380, Nwachukwu v. State (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 31.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

CONVICTION IN CAPITAL OFFENCES – STANDARD OF PROOF AND SCRUTINY

---

“Conviction for a capital offence is not to be handed lightly, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the evidence is concrete and unequivocal in establishing the guilt of the accused person. The point has been emphasized by this Court in a plethora of cases. In the case of OHAKPOUGWO V. STATE (2021) LPELR-54910 (CA) P. 41, PARAS. A-C it was held per WAMBAI, JCA that: ‘The need for trial Court to be very circumspect in criminal trials and to exercise great care before convicting an accused person especially for a capital offence cannot be overemphasised as it is one of the beacons of our criminal jurisprudence expressed in the maxim “it is better for ten guilty people to be set free than for one innocent person to be convicted.'”” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

POLICE INVESTIGATION PRACTICES – OVER-RELIANCE ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“I must add that the trial Court must particularly exercise ‘extra’ great care where the conviction is based on the confessional statement of an accused person. This is particularly because it has almost become a notorious fact that the Police have the proclivity for being content with simply extracting confessional statements from suspects rather than conducting a proper investigation.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

RECORDER’S ATTESTATION – IMPORTANCE IN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“Where an extra-judicial statement particularly a confessional statement is recorded by a person other than the maker, such person must attest to the fact that he read and explained the statement to the maker in a language that he understands, after which he states his name and append his signature as the recorder. In other words, for a confessional statement recorded by a person other than the maker to be ascribed any value, the recorder must state his name and append his signature on the Statement after stating the language in which he read and interpreted the confessional statement to the suspect.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

WITNESS TESTIMONY – EFFECT OF INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY

---

“It is clear from the records that the Appellant consistently denied ever making any statement to the Police whereas the PW4’s evidence was inconsistent with respect to the signature and attestation of the said Exhibit G. At best, the Trial Court should have found Exhibit G to be incomplete without the signature of the recorder and the attestation of the superior Police officer the PW4 claimed it contained. The Statement ought not to have been ascribed any probative value for this reason.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS OF CO-ACCUSED – LIMITATIONS ON USE AGAINST OTHER ACCUSED

---

“In line with the above provision of the Evidence Act, the trial Judge held as earlier shown that the Appellant adopted the confessional statement of the 2nd Accused Person (Exhibit H). The Appellant Counsel however argued in his brief that the finding of the trial Court is not supported by the records. Unfortunately, the Respondent did not respond to this point in his brief nor refer to the part of the records where the Appellant adopted Exhibit H.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

STATEMENT OF CO-ACCUSED – REQUIREMENTS FOR USE AGAINST OTHER ACCUSED

---

“A statement made to the Police by an accused person implicating a co-accused is not admissible against that accused. Where the prosecution intends to use the statement against a co-accused, as in the instance, then the prosecution is bound to make a copy of the incriminating statement available to the co-accused for him to reject or adopt same. See STATE V. GWANGWAN (SUPRA). Going through the records, there is nothing to show or suggest that the Appellant adopted Exhibit H. And I so hold.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

PERVERSE DECISION – WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERVENE

---

“Thus, the decision of the trial Court on that issue is therefore not borne out of the evidence. It is trite that the decision of a Court not borne out of the evidence is perverse and liable to be set aside by the appellate Court.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS – PROOF OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

“In a nutshell, to succeed, the Prosecution in a charge of armed robbery is required to establish the following ingredients: i. That there has been either a robbery or series of robberies; ii. That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery; iii. That the accused was either the robber or one of those who took part in the robbery or series of robberies.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CAPITAL OFFENCES – BURDEN ON PROSECUTION

---

“I have painstakingly reviewed the facts of this case to show that the Respondent failed to establish the case of conspiracy and Armed Robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution left wide gaps unfilled and so many pertinent questions unanswered. The trial Court erred in convicting the Appellant based on the purported confessional statement.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

DEATH PENALTY – STANDARD OF CARE IN CAPITAL CASES

---

“I must add that death sentences are not to be handed down lightly. In a charge of capital offence, the Court must take extra care and absolutely satisfy itself and the average man, that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Penal Code (Amendment No. 12) Law 2014

4 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT