CORAM

ALI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. EME ORJI APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, who was a security man, under duress lead assassins into the house leading to the death of three people. The evidence against him was that he did not follow the normal procedure for allowing visitors into the house, he did not lie down when the assassins asked everyone to lie down and that he went into hiding until the assassins left. ?

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was not cogent and compelling enough to lead to the appellant’s conviction. ?

ISSUES

(1) Having regard to the facts of this case whether the fact that the appellant did not immediately lie down when ordered to do so was enough circumstantial evidence against the appellant cogent and compelling enough to lead to the irresistible conclusion that he was a party to the offence.(2) Whether having regards to the facts of this case the fact that the appellant led the assassins to the PW 1 and the fact he failed to follow the prescribed procedure of communicating with his employer after 8p. (sic) points to the guilt of the appellant in facilitating the unlawful act of aiding in the committal of the murders of the three deceased persons.(3) Whether the fact that the appellant went into hiding and/or failed to raise alarm connotes the aiding or facilitating escape of the strange men thereby making him a party to the crime

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

1. Anekwe v. State supra 2. Aigbadion v. State 2000 7 NWLR part 666 page 686.3. Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 2 All ER 3774. Akalezi v. The State 1993 10 LRCN 2645. Woolmington v. DPP (1935) A. C. 462?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Evidence Act cap E14 LFN 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT