CORAM
Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
EMMANUEL AMEH
APPELLANTS
THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ARMED ROBBERY, ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, APPEAL, IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, BURDEN OF PROOF
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Emmanuel Ameh, along with another accused person, was charged before the Ikeja Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State on a two-count charge for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery under Section 403(a) and 402(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap.C17, Volume 2, Laws of Lagos State, 2003.
The case against the Appellant was that on June 27, 2007, the Appellant and his confederates, under the pretense of providing taxi-cab services, picked up the victim (PW1). During the journey, they diverted from the victim’s destination, and when she became suspicious and attempted to disembark, they attacked her, beating her severely and dispossessing her of her rings and cash before abandoning her along the expressway. The assailants drove in the opposite direction to the traffic route and were involved in an accident with the taxi-cab shortly after.
The police took the Appellant to the hospital and towed the taxi-cab to the police station. During the struggle between the victim and her assailants, the victim’s mobile phone fell into the taxi-cab unnoticed. When the victim later called her phone, the police answered, leading to her narrating her story. She was taken to the hospital for treatment and identified the co-accused person as one of her assailants, who then led the police to arrest the Appellant as his partner in the crime.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found that while the prosecution did not prove the use of arms to sustain the allegation of armed robbery, they did prove the lesser offenses of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery simpliciter beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court held that the Respondent adduced ample, cogent, convincing, and credible evidence to justify the conviction of the Appellant for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery.
3. The Court affirmed the decisions of the two lower courts.
4. The Court found that the identification of the Appellant as one of the robbers was properly established through the eyewitness testimony and the Appellant’s confessional statement.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly upheld the lower Court’s finding that PW1 accurately identified the appellant.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the lower Court’s judgment despite glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s key witnesses.
3. Whether in the absence of a proper assessment of PW1’s testimony and proof of conspiracy between the Appellant and the co-accused, the lower Court’s conviction should be overturned.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – IMPROPRIETY OF RAISING PRELIMINARY POINTS WITHOUT PROPER PROCEDURE
It is elementary that where a Respondent to an appeal is desirous of challenging the competence of the appeal or a ground or an issue thereof, the avenue to do so is to file either a preliminary objection directed against the appeal to terminate the appeal in limine or a Notice of Motion directed against a ground or an issue alleged to be afflicted with the incompetence. There is therefore no room for a respondent to make a preliminary point, or a preliminary observation short of a duly ventilated preliminary objection in the appeal. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF – PROSECUTION’S DUTY TO PROVE EVERY INGREDIENT OF AN OFFENCE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
It is elementary law that the burden to prove every ingredient of an offence charged beyond reasonable doubt squarely rests on the prosecution. The central issue is therefore whether the Respondent as the prosecution in this appeal led credible evidence in discharge of the burden of proof imposed on it by the law. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY – CONSTITUTIVE ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY
The constitutive elements of robbery are that
(i) there was indeed a robbery or series of robbery;
(ii) that the robbery was carried out with the threat or actual use of violence on the victim;
(iii) that items of the victim which were capable in law of being stolen were stolen and
(iv) that the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS UNNECESSARY
It is my candid view that circumstances of arresting the Appellant as narrated above coupled with the eyewitness account of the PW1 dispel any conclusion that the Appellant is not one of the robbers who attacked the PW1 on the fateful day. It is akin to arresting the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The PW1 was beaten and robbed of her ring and cash right inside the car. Where then is the scene of the crime? Of course, the interior of the car is the scene of the crime and the Appellant along with his confederates was found and arrested inside the car a short while after PW1 was robbed.- Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
CONTRADICTIONS IN TESTIMONY – MATERIALITY OF CONTRADICTIONS
The law is settled that it is not every contradiction that affects the case of the prosecution. For a contradiction to affect the case of the prosecution, it must be such that goes to one of the elements of the offence charged.– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – SUFFICIENCY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO GROUND CONVICTION
The law is trite that confessional statement alone, if it is voluntary, cogent and direct can ground a conviction. It is only desirable to have a corroborative evidence outside the confession. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
DENIAL OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – APPROPRIATE TIME TO CHALLENGE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The law has now crystallized that the appropriate avenue to raise any complaint about an extra-judicial statement is at the point of tendering it, whether, the complaint is about involuntariness or outright denial of the statement. Although, the denial of the statement when raised at the point of tendering the statement will not be taken as an objection to the admission of the statement and will not warrant a trial within trial or any form of ruling at all but will be on record and a foundation for the accused person to give further evidence about his connection or lack of same with the statement in his examination in chief during his defence. Otherwise, the accused person will be deemed to have accepted making the statement voluntarily. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
DENIAL OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO DENIED STATEMENT
The law is that when accused person denies making an extra-judicial statement attributed to it, the trial Court will admit it and apply the six-way test laid down in R V SYKES (1913) 8 CAR 233 to determine the weight to be attached to the statement at the point of giving judgment. This is exactly what the learned trial judge did in this case. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.
OBJECTION TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL – PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The proper procedure for the respondent to challenge only one ground or more grounds of appeal, leaving other competent grounds which would validate the hearing of an appeal on its merits, is for the respondent to file a motion on notice challenging the ground or grounds in issue. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.
PROOF OF GUILT – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
It is trite law that in criminal trials, the guilt of an accused person or the fact of his participation in the commission of the offence charged can be established in any or all the following ways (a) the confessional statement of the accused person wherein he or she admits the commission of the offence and which has been duly tested, proved and is unequivocal and admitted in evidence; (b) circumstantial evidence which is complete, cogent and unequivocal and which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused committed the offence; and (c) evidence of an eye witness who saw the accused person committing the offence charged. Any one of the methods is sufficient. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
FAILURE TO CHALLENGE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE
The failure of the Appellant and/or of his Counsel to challenge the evidence the third prosecution witness on the making of the confessional statement by the Appellant under cross examination is tantamount to an admission by the Appellant of his making of the confessional statement and of the truth of its contents. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBJECT TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
It is also settled law that where an accused person, like the Appellant in the instant case, fails to raise any objection to the admissibility of a confessional statement at the time of its tendering, the law implies that he agrees with everything in the statement and that it contains the truth on his role in the crime. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – TREATMENT OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE ON MATERIAL FACTS
The law is that a Court is obliged to treat unchallenged evidence on a material fact as true, cogent and credible and to act on it, unless the evidence is patently incredible. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Code Law Cap.C17, Volume 2, Laws of Lagos State, 2003
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 LFN, 2004
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT