Legalpedia Citation: (2025-04) Legalpedia 07551 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Apr 11, 2025

Suit Number: SC.CR/1037/2021

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

ETIM ASUQUO

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, MURDER, ARSON, ALIBI, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, APPELLATE JURISDICTION, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and arson. On April 7, 2014, the appellant was arraigned along with seven other accused persons before the trial Court on a three-count charge of conspiracy, murder, and arson contrary to Sections 552, 326(1), and 464(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap.38 Vol. 2 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant led a gang known as “Akaba Boys” that attacked the deceased (Michael Solomon), locked him in his house, and set the house ablaze, causing the deceased to be burnt to death. The prosecution called five witnesses, including PW1 (the wife of the deceased) and PW2 (who gave eyewitness testimony that the appellant led the attack). The appellant denied involvement and raised an alibi defense, claiming he was in Uyo to purchase plumbing materials at the time of the incident.

The trial Court found the appellant guilty of murder and arson and sentenced him to death by hanging on August 5, 2016. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment on March 25, 2020. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed this appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD

  1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
  2. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal, finding that the appellant’s alibi defense failed in the face of positive identification by an eyewitness (PW2).
  3. The Court held that all the ingredients of murder and arson were proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
  4. The Court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower Courts were not perverse and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
  5. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence passed on the appellant.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the lower Court was right in upholding the decision of the trial Court and concluding that the trial Court was right in not according the defence of alibi set up by the appellant any eminence or value in favour of the appellant?
  2. Whether the lower Court did not err in law in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder and arson despite the fact that none of the ingredients of the offence of murder and arson was proved against the appellant?
  3. Whether the decision of the lower Court dismissing appellant’s appeal and affirming the decision of the trial Court, lacking appropriate inference was not perverse?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ALIBI — NATURE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI

The appellant and the respondent in the instant appeal have engaged themselves in laborious arguments on whether the defence of alibi raised by the appellant was established. Alibi as a defence is a complete defence which has the propensity of setting free a person accused of committing a crime, if it is well established. Commission of the crime described in the instant case portrays that there is a locus delicit, that is a latin legal terminology meaning ‘the place of the crime’ or the ‘scene of the offence’. It is the location where a criminal act was committed.– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE DEFENCE OF ALIBI

It is instructive to note that for the defence of alibi to be taken seriously, the accused must furnish the particulars of his alibi in full details to the Police. The alibi must be definite as to time, place and the persons who know the whereabouts of the accused. It is not meant to set the Police on a wild goose chase. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

ALIBI — EFFECT OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION AT SCENE OF CRIME

It is important to note that alibi is not a statutory defense but rather a factual one. Its primary purpose is to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Therefore, when an accused person is firmly placed at the crime scene by evidence deemed credible by the trial judge, no reasonable doubt arises in favour of the accused merely because the Police failed to investigate the alleged alibi put forward by the defense. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

In our adversarial or accusatorial criminal justice system, it is the norm that the prosecution is mandated to prove the case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and it is never the duty of a person accused of an offence to prove his innocence. This is an offshoot of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which prescribes that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT — MEANING AND SCOPE

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the statutory burden placed on the shoulders of the prosecution by Section 135(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. See Alabi v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511, 531 (A-C); Solola v. The State (2005) 5 SC (Pt.1) 135; Orisa v. State (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1613) 453. The requirement of the law is that for this burden to be discharged by the prosecution, the prosecution must walk through the evidence available to establish the ingredients of the offence(s) for which the accused person was charged. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

INGREDIENTS OF MURDER — ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED BY PROSECUTION

In the instant case, the offences for which the appellant was convicted are those of murder and arson. The ingredients of the offence of murder have been identified and settled in numerous decisions of this Court. Few of these decisions are Akinlolu v. The State (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt.1497) 803; Njoku v. The State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt.1339) 543; Akinsuwa v. State (2019) LPELR-47621 (SC); Okeke v. State (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 590) 246; Bassey v. State (2019) LPELR-46910(SC) and Alufohai v. The State (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt.1445) 172. The ingredients are (1) That the deceased is dead. (2) That the act of the accused person caused the death of the deceased; and (3) That the act was done by the accused with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm.– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

INGREDIENTS OF ARSON — ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED BY PROSECUTION

For the offence of arson, the ingredients are: (a) That there was a dwelling house; (b) That a dwelling house was actually set ablaze; and (c) That the accused person was responsible in doing so and did so intentionally. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT — SUPREME COURT’S RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE

It is well settled as a fundamental policy of this Court as the apex appellate Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. See Iyaro v. The State (1988), NWLR (Pt. 69) 256; Nasamu v. The State (1979) 6-9 SC 153; Mainagge v. Gwamma (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 893) 323 and Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR (1021) 282. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS

Having gone that much far, an appellant will be required to show either that the findings were perverse thus leading to an obvious miscarriage of justice or that there was a violation of some principle of law or procedure for this Court to interfere with the condensed findings of fact. It is settled law that there must be clear proof of error either of law or fact on the record which has occasioned miscarriage of justice before this Court can upset or reverse concurrent findings of fact. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE — EFFECT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

There is an argument that the inference drawn by the lower Courts over the guilt of the appellant was not supported by evidence. In the instant case, the evidence of the 1st and 2nd PW was direct and uncontroverted. Once a witness testified on oath before the trial Court and the evidence is not controverted or dismantled by cross-examination, the evidence unchallenged may be deemed credible and accepted by the Court. Uncontroverted evidence in criminal trials is critical. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

PROOF OF DEATH — ABSENCE OF CORPSE NOT FATAL TO PROSECUTION’S CASE

The circumstances of this case make it obvious and certain that one does not need any exhibition of the body or corpse of the deceased. It is therefore, very well established in this case that the lower Court made appropriate inferences in arriving at confirming the conviction of the appellant. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

DIFFICULTY IN DISTURBING CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT — BURDEN ON APPELLANT

The lead judgment in this appeal is indisputably a product of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. ‘The task of the Appellant on this ground of appeal is made more difficult by the fact that there are before us concurrent findings of fact by both the learned trial Chief Judge and the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal. It is settled law that such concurrent findings, where there is sufficient evidence to support them should not be disturbed. This rule of practice can only be obviated if there is some miscarriage of justice and violation of some principle of law or procedure’. – Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

DRAWING INFERENCES FROM PROVEN FACTS — JUDICIAL DISCRETION

It is settled law that a judge is permitted to infer from the facts proved and other facts necessary to complete the element of guilt or establish innocence of the accused person as that is what differentiates him from an artificial personality. The caveat however, is that such evidence must be closely examined as was done by the Courts in the instant case to avoid any margin of error in arriving at the guilt of the appellant. the judge has to be certain that there are no other co-existing circumstances which may weaken or destroy the inference. – Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

  1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 36(5)
  2. Evidence Act, 2011, Section 135(2)
  3. Criminal Code, Cap.38 Vol. 2 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000, Sections 552, 326(1) and 464(a)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT