GODWIN IKPASA VS BENDEL STATE

CORAM

UDOMA

IRIKEFE

SOWEMIMO

ANIAGOLU

BELLO

PARTIES

GODWIN IKPASA APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was tried and convicted for the murder of his wife under the Criminal Code Law of Bendel State, 1976, (Cap. 48). At the time of the commission of the offence, the code in force was the Criminal Code Law of the Western Region of Nigeria, (Cap. 28). The appellant denied making the confession in which he admitted committing the offence.

HELD

The court dismissed the appeal and held that since murder was already an offence at the time the offence was committed and the punishment the same, the provision of Cap 48 which authorised the trial of the appellant was not unconstitutional.

ISSUES

Whether the appellant, having committed the offence as alleged as far back as 17th May, 1974, when the only Criminal Code in force which made murder a criminal offence punishable by law in the Midwestern (later Bendel) State was the Criminal Code of the Western Region of Nigeria, he could properly and constitutionally be tried and convicted under the Criminal Code of Bendel State which only came into force on 3rd January, 1978Whether the appellant was rightly convicted of murder based on the retyracted confessional statement.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRODUCTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHERE IT IS STATED NOT TO BE MADE BY THE ACCUSSED

where on the production of a confession, it is challenged on the ground that an accused person did not make it at all, the question of whether he made it or not is a matter to be decided at the conclusion of the trial by the learned trial Judge himself. Whatever objection may be made by counsel in such circumstances does not affect the admissibility of the statement and therefore it should be admitted in evidence as the issue of voluntariness or otherwise of the statement does not arise for consideration and decision – Sir Udo Udoma, JSC J.S.C

THE PURPORT OF SECTION 22(7) OF THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION OF 1963

The language of Section 22(7) of the Nigerian Constitution of 1963 is plain enough. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It leaves no one in doubt as to its meaning and purport and therefore, also leaves no room for any conjecture or speculation. The provisions had sought to protect a person from being prosecuted and punished for an act or omission which when it occurred did not constitute an offence- Sir Udo Udoma, JSC.

CASES CITED

Queen v. Igwe (1960) 5 FSC 55.Queen v. Tuke (1961) 1 All NLR 258;Oruche v. Commissioner of Police (1963) 1 All NLR 262;Queen v. Bukar (1961) 1 All NLR 646