IDRIS ADAMU V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 64126 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 21, 2025

Suit Number: SC.812/2014

CORAM

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

IDRIS ADAMU

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL, EVIDENCE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, CONSPIRACY

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on March 31, 2014, which affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State in criminal case No. LD/118C/2006 delivered on March 1, 2011. The High Court had convicted and sentenced the appellant to 21 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

According to the evidence presented at trial, three men robbed PW1 (the victim) of his Toyota Corolla and other items at gunpoint and drove off with the car. The victim immediately reported the incident to the police, who promptly alerted all police stations. The stolen car was later found in a swamp where it had skidded off the road. Due to the suspicious behavior of the men in the car, villagers decided to apprehend them. Two of the three men in the car were caught by the villagers and handed over to the police, while one escaped.

The appellant, in his testimony while retracting his confessions, admitted that at the relevant time and place, the commercial car in which he was traveling to Seme skidded off the road and landed in a ditch, and that the second accused was also in the car. He claimed that when they came out of the car, some co-passengers ran away, and he and the second accused were arrested.

The appellant made two confessional statements (Exhibits C and G) at the State C.I.D. at Panti and at Anthony Police Station respectively, in which he confessed to successive agreements between himself, his co-convicts, and others at large to rob cars, drive them through Badagry across the border, and sell them to one Umoru in Benin Republic.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt were justified by the evidence contained in the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3, Exhibits C and G, the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant, and Exhibit B (photograph of the stolen car).
The Court held that the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the trial Court’s conviction of the appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery based on the evidence.
The Supreme Court further held that the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the trial Court’s reliance on the retracted extra-judicial confessions to convict the appellant, as they were voluntarily made, similar, corroborated each other, and were also corroborated by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and parts of the appellant’s own testimony.
The appellant’s argument regarding the lack of an illiterate jurat in his confessional statements was deemed incompetent, as the related ground of appeal was abandoned when no issue was raised from it for determination.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the Appellant in the absence of credible evidence adduced at the trial Court by the prosecution in proof of the offence for which the Appellant was charged?
Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the Appellant despite his untested retracted extra-judicial statement and given that the Appellant was not afforded fair hearing and fair opportunity at the investigative stage of this matter by the police at the time he allegedly signed pre-written statements made by the police without an interpreter?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENTS – BURDEN ON APPELLANT TO DISPLACE SUCH PRESUMPTION

The settled law is that a judgment of a Court is presumed correct. An appeal against a judgment seeks to displace this presumption and therefore contends that the judgment erred or is wrong in certain respects or for certain reasons. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – SCOPE OF APPEALS AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDINGS

This appeal is against the Court of Appeal findings of facts concurring with those of the trial Court on the evidence. The law presumes that the concurrent findings are correct and should not be interfered with unless they are shown not to be correct because they are perverse and violate the law and have caused injustice thereby. This presumption limits the scope of appeals against concurrent findings of fact to appeals on grounds that the findings are perverse or contrary to law and limits the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such appeals to only appeals on grounds that the findings are perverse or contrary to law. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – NEED FOR PRECISENESS AND SPECIFICITY

Issue No. 1 in the appellant’s brief by asking whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the appellant in the absence of credible evidence adduced at the trial Court is devoid of the preciseness, specificity and the narrowness of an appeal against concurrent findings of facts. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – NATURE AND INGREDIENTS OF CONSPIRACY

It is also well settled that the essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement and association to do an unlawful thing which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that thing be criminal or not and whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of the unlawfulness. Evidence of conspiracy is usually a matter of inference from the fact of doing things towards a common purpose.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – RELIANCE ON RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

A Court can safely convict an accused person on his retracted confessional statement once the confession is voluntary, positive, direct and credible. Even though the retraction does not diminish the legal value of such a confession, it is desirable that some evidence should, even slightly, corroborate it.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

ABANDONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF NOT RAISING AN ISSUE FROM A GROUND

An appellant abandons a ground of his or her appeal when no issue is raised from it for determination in the appeal.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE

There is nothing of fact or law in the record that shows that the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts are perverse. The evidence of the victim, PW1, the evidence of some other eyewitnesses including those who apprehended the appellant showed irrefutably that the findings of the two Courts below were grounded in law and facts.- Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – COURT’S POWER TO CONVICT SOLELY ON CONFESSION

Exhibits C and G are the appellant’s confessional statements. The law grants the Court the unbridled licence to convict an accused person solely on a confession where it is free, direct, voluntary, cogent, clear, unequivocal.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.

CONSPIRACY – PROOF THROUGH CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

The Court of Appeal correctly relied on the statements of the appellant in exhibits C and G reproduced in its judgment as follows – ‘…..Everybody sabi me for Seme boarder, since I have been bringing motor to Lolo is one year now. The motor wey I don bring to Lolo plenty, I cannot count them, I no de hold paper for the motors. The man whom name want to give this motor we rob in Nigeria is called Umoru, he lives in Seme’.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

APPELLANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF TRIAL COURT’S DECISION – EFFECT OF NOT APPEALING AGAINST A DECISION

The decision of the trial Court that they are similar and voluntarily made was not appealed against. By not appealing against the decision, the appellant accepted it as correct, conclusive and binding on him.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

CORROBORATION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

The two confessions made at different police stations and date corroborates each other. They are also corroborated by the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in several relevant particulars. The appellant in his testimony in defence corroborated his said extra-judicial confessions when he admitted that he and the 1st accused were in the car along Badagri-Seme Road that skidded off the road into a swampy ditch and that he was arrested after he came out of that car.- Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY – PROVING COMMON PURPOSE

In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the trial Courts conviction of the appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery on the evidence. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – VALIDITY OF ISSUES QUESTIONING CORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENT

The two issues in the appellant’s brief and the sole issue in the respondent’s brief are not valid for consideration because they are contrary to settled law as they question if the Court of Appeal was right in its judgment and are vague, not specific and raise no particular point of fact or law for determination. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.