CHIEF REAGAN UFOMBA V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS
April 16, 2025OKOKON JOHN V. THE STATE
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017-04) Legalpedia 03444 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 7, 2017
Suit Number: SC.405/2015
CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKANNU ON1MOGHEN
Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Musa Dattijo Muhammad Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ejembi Eko Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Sidi Dauda Bage Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
HADI SULE APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged alongside three others, including one Ahmed M. Dikko (who later absconded from his sick bed and was declared wanted), as the 3rd accused person in charge No. NHSC/MN/11C/2006. They were tried on a two-count charge of culpable homicide not punishable with death and conspiracy contrary to Sections 224 and 97 of the Penal Code respectively.
During the course of the trial, Ahmed Dikko escaped, and the prosecution sought and obtained an order of the trial Court to stay proceedings against him but continued against the remaining accused persons. The charge was subsequently amended, and the plea of the three accused persons, including the appellant, was taken to the amended charge.
The prosecution called a total of 8 witnesses, and each of the three accused persons testified in defense. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found that the offence of conspiracy was not proved and discharged and acquitted the accused persons on that count. However, the trial Court found the three accused persons guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not punishable with death and sentenced them to 15 years imprisonment.
Being dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
2. The conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Court below were reconfirmed.
3. The judgment of the lower Court dated 8 May 2015 was affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court below was right in upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant despite staying proceedings against the 2nd accused, Ahmed M. Dikko who was reported to be at large?
2. Whether the Court below was right to have upheld the decision of the trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 269(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
3. Whether the Court below was right to have upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the basis of his confessional statement and evidence adduced at the trial Court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JOINT TRIAL – EFFECT OF STAYING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN ABSCONDING ACCUSED PERSON
The contention of the appellant, on the basis of which he asked us to set aside the decision of the Court below, and by necessary implications, that of the trial Court, is that the trial Court ought to have struck-out the name of the absconded 2nd accused person. Although doing so may be appropriate, I see no reason why it becomes procedurally imperative in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 259(1) of the CPC quoted above.- Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 259 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE – DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF THE PROVISION
I wish to add that the above provision is very clear and unambiguous. The word “MAY” is used twice in that simple provision to connote discretionary rules. The Court ‘may’ by order stay proceedings of joint trial…”, which the trial Court did apparently and (for deliberate tautology) obviously and in writing within the precinct of the section says “may” by order in writing… – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – DUTY OF THE COURT
This Court stated times without number, that the law is settled that express written provision of the law must be given its literary meaning irrespective of flowery embellishments in counsel’s written argument.- Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
PURPOSE OF RULES OF PROCEDURE – AIDS TO THE COURT NOT MASTERS
Rules of procedure are made for the convenience and orderly hearing of cases in Court. They are made to help the cause of justice and not defeat justice. The rules are therefore aides to the Court and not masters of the Court. For Courts to read rules in the absolute without recourse to the justice of the cause, to my mind, will be making the Courts slavish to the rules. This certainly is not the reason for the rules of Court. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
JUDGMENT – REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 269(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
I align with the Court below in affirming that the judgment delivered on 29 June 2012 by the learned Chief Judge contains all the requisite requirements of a valid judgment and therefore valid for all intent and purposes. Assuming without conceding that the argument is logical, I’m yet to see why the dating and signature or sealing of a judgment by the trial judge in the open Court is made a strict requirement of the law to vitiate a trial or judgment. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
TECHNICAL JUSTICE VS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – ATTITUDE OF THE COURT
Litigants should expect no technical but substantial justice from this Court. We have said several times that we are not a workshop for technical justice. Over and over again, we have reiterated the need to do substantial justice and avoid delving into the error of technicalities. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
FAIR HEARING – FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PARTIES
Fair trial or hearing is a strict rule. What must be added and emphatically stressed is the fact that the principle of fair hearing as enshrined under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended (CFRN, 1999) is for the benefit of the appellant and respondent.- Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
The standard of proof of a criminal offence is proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction. The evidence at the trial and which was concurrently upheld by the Court below is that the respondent has adduced enough, convincing evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, including the confessional statement of the appellant, the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide not punishable with death as basis for convicting the appellant.- Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE
The law is settled that the Supreme Court, this noble Court, will not interfere with concurrent finding of facts made by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal unless such findings are perverse, or are not supported by the evidence or are reached as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence; or as a result of a wrong application of evidence; or as a result of a wrong application of any principle of substantive law or procedure. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
By virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement is tenable and admissible. The Section describes a confessional statement thus: ‘A confession is an admission made at any time by a person, charged with a crime tending to show or suggest the inference that he committed the crime. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF DENIAL BY ACCUSED
Confessional statement is the best evidence to ground conviction and, as held in a number of cases, it can be relied upon solely where voluntary. The criminal guilt of an accused person could be established by confessional statement, circumstantial evidence and evidence of an eye witness. A confessional statement of the appellant that was free and voluntary regardless of the facts that he (the appellant) subsequently resiled from his voluntary confession at trial, is good evidence to ground conviction. A confessional statement does not become inadmissible simply because the accused denied having made it. – Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY
The confessional statement of an accused, where it is direct, positive and unequivocal as to the commission of the crime charged, is the best evidence and can be relied upon solely for conviction of the accused person. An accused person can be convicted on his confessional statement alone, where the confession is constant with other ascertained facts which have been proved. Confession in criminal procedure is the strongest evidence of guilt on the act of an accused person. It is stronger than evidence of an eye-witness because the evidence comes from the horse’s mouth who is the accused person.- Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.
JUDICIAL ACTS – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
Equity follows the law, and takes as done that which ought be done. This is what Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, is about when it provides that when any judicial act is shown to have been in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.- Per EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
2. Criminal Procedure Code
3. Evidence Act, 2011
4. Penal Code
