ESTHER ONYEABOR V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 17437 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Abuja

Wed Jun 11, 2025

Suit Number: CA/ABJ/CR/1207/2022

CORAM

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal

Donatus Uwaezuoke Okorowo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

ESTHER ONYEABOR

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Esther Onyeabor, and one Felix Ade Oladele were arraigned on August 28, 2019, by the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on a three-count charge relating to trafficking in persons. They pleaded not guilty to all charges dated May 31, 2019.

The charges involved allegations that on March 11, 2019, in Abuja, the defendants conspired to obtain possession of an infant baby of about 4 days old from one Hannatu Sunday, a 22-year-old female, for the purpose of exploiting her. Count 1 alleged conspiracy contrary to Section 27 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015. Count 2 alleged that Felix Ade Oladele obtained possession of the infant baby knowing that the mother would be subjected to exploitation. Count 3 alleged that Esther Onyeabor obtained possession of the infant baby knowing that the mother would be subjected to exploitation, both contrary to Section 21 of the same Act.

The prosecution called two witnesses: PW1 (Geoffrey Okwigwe), an investigator with NAPTIP, and PW2 (Lazarus Joshua), a gardener and boyfriend of Hannatu Sunday who was the father of the baby. The prosecution tendered Exhibits A-D, being the statements of Hannatu Sunday, Esther Onyeabor, Joshua Lazarus, and Felix Oladele respectively. The Appellant testified in her defense but tendered no exhibits.

The evidence revealed that Hannatu Sunday was in a relationship with Joshua Lazarus (PW2), which resulted in pregnancy. When she gave birth, she allegedly needed financial assistance for hospital bills. Felix Oladele (1st Defendant) approached the Appellant for financial assistance, and the Appellant provided approximately N200,000 for hospital bills and to ensure the victim was okay, though only N120,000 was actually used for medical bills. The Appellant claimed she was helping on humanitarian grounds as a Pastor, and that both Hannatu Sunday and the baby came to her place where she agreed to care for the baby until the mother was ready to retrieve the child.

On October 26, 2022, the trial judge convicted the Appellant of counts 1 and 3, sentencing her to five years imprisonment with a fine of N2,000,000. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on November 3, 2022, which was later amended on June 30, 2023.

HELD

The appeal was allowed and held to be meritorious.
The conviction and sentence of the Appellant in the trial Court’s judgment delivered on October 26, 2022, was set aside.
The Appellant was discharged and acquitted of all charges.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 21 and 27 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.
The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based primarily on the personal opinion of the investigating officer rather than tangible evidence, and that key evidence including the investigation report was never tendered.
The Court held that PW2’s categorical denial that any baby was sold or bought by the defendants completely demolished the prosecution’s case.

ISSUES

Whether the essential ingredients to ground the offence of conspiracy to obtain possession of an infant baby for exploitation as contained in Count 1 of the charge was proved by the Respondent, leading to the conviction of the Appellant by the trial Court, when there was no agreement, meeting of minds or confederacy between the Appellant to commit exploitation with the 1st Defendant to the charge?
Whether going by the findings of the trial Court in its judgment, vis-a-vis the oral and documentary evidence adduced at trial, the Appellant ought to have been convicted for the offences as contained in counts 1 and 3 of the charge?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPELLATE COURT FUNCTION – CORRECTION OF ERRORS RATHER THAN RE-TRIAL

It is not our function, as a Court of appeal, to re-try the case on the written record; our duty is to consider whether the verdict is unreasonable or unwarranted or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence… – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – PRIMARY DUTY OF TRIAL COURT

The settled law is that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary duty of a trial Court, which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and assessing their demeanor and credibility.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

CHALLENGING TRIAL COURT’S EVALUATION – APPELLANT’S DUTY TO SHOW ERROR

Thus, in an appeal such as this one, where the Appellant challenges the evaluation of the evidence made by the trial Court in arriving at its verdict, the Appellant has the duty of identifying the evidence not evaluated or improperly evaluated by the trial Court and showing convincingly that if the error complained of is corrected, the conclusion reached would have been different and in her favour. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

CONSPIRACY – PROOF BY INFERENCE FROM OVERT ACTIONS

The offence of conspiracy is one which is hardly proved by direct evidence since there is hardly a formal agreement or plot to commit crime that can be shown or established. Rather, conspiracy is usually inferred from evidence of the overt actions of the co-conspirators in furtherance of their criminal agreement or plot. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

CONSPIRACY AND SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE – RELATIONSHIP IN PROOF

Hence, where the offence of conspiracy is charged along with the substantive offence, such as in the instant case, it is always expedient to first consider whether the substantive offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt before deciding whether the offence of conspiracy to commit the substantive offence has been made out. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – PROSECUTION’S RESPONSIBILITY

It is elementary principle of criminal law that the burden of establishing the commission of a criminal offence is squarely and statically on the prosecution which they must discharge beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

This is because, a defendant who is accused of committing a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty.” – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

PROOF OF CRIMINAL OFFENCE – THREE METHODS OF ESTABLISHMENT

As for whether the Respondent had proved the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant as required by law, the settled law is that the proof of the commission of a crime is rendered through any or a combination of three ways, namely: (a) by direct evidence of eye witness(es); (b) by confessional statement of the accused; (c) by circumstantial evidence.” – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

FAILURE TO CROSS-EXAMINE – TACIT ACCEPTANCE OF TESTIMONY

The law is that failure to cross-examine a witness on a material fact, is tantamount to a tacit acceptance of the truth of that fact.” – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

DOUBT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – RESOLUTION IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT

The law is that any doubt in a criminal proceeding must be resolved in favour of the defendant, in this case the Appellant. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

FAILURE TO PROVE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE – EFFECT ON CONSPIRACY CHARGE

The settled law is that where the prosecution relied in the main on proof of the substantive offence in order to establish the offence of conspiracy, the failure to prove the substantive offence means that the offence of conspiracy is also unproven.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS – PURPOSE OF OBTAINING POSSESSION MUST BE PROVED

Also of note is the fact that in proving the above captured offence against the Appellant, the prosecution must establish the purpose for which the Appellant bought, sold, hired, let or obtained possession or disposal of an infant baby with the intent of subjecting the said baby or Hannatu (the mother) to exploitation.– Per OYEJOJU OYEBIOLA OYEWUMI, J.C.A.

IMMORAL PURPOSE – REQUIREMENT FOR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 21

The immorality in Section 21 of the Act must be proved by the prosecution otherwise the conviction of the appellant on the offence must be set aside.” – Per OYEJOJU OYEBIOLA OYEWUMI, J.C.A.