CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

IFEANYI CHIYENUM BLESSING   APPELLANTS

---

 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused /Appellant was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Ilorin on a three count charge for unlawful possession and unlawfully dealing with Indian hemp contrary to sections 11(c) and 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) Act, Cap. No. 30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. During the trial, the extra-judicial statement of the Accused /Appellant was tendered where she had admitted committing the crime, but retracted same at the trial. A trial within trial was held to ascertain the voluntariness of the confessional statement, after which it was admitted in evidence as being voluntary and positive. Consequently, at the end of the trial, the court convicted and consequently sentenced the Accused/Appellant to a term of 15 years imprisonment in view of her confessional statement and other evidence adduced. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Accused /Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial court was affirmed. Further aggrieved, he has appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the grounds upon which the appeal is based is that, she being an illiterate, the charge was not properly read to her and thus her plea was not properly taken.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the plea of the appellant was properly taken by the trial court?

2. Whether from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences as charged against the Appellant to warrant her conviction?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – IMPLICATION OF “SHALL” IN SECTION 215 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT ON A DEFECTIVE PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“The intendment is not just to get an accused person to enter a plea, it is, more importantly to make sure that he understands what he has pleaded. The use of the word “shall” in the above provision makes it mandatory such that where the plea of an accused person had been defectively taken in violation of the statutory provision of the law earlier quoted, the whole trial, conviction and sentence passed on the accused/appellant based on such defective plea amounts to a nullity. See Isiaka Rufai V. The State (2001) 13 NWLR (pt. 731) 718, Tobby V. State (2001) 10 NWLR (pt. 720) 23, Ewe V. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 246) 147, Erekanure V. The State (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 294) 385. PER J. I.OKORO,J.S.C

---

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – THE RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WILL NOT VITIATE ITS ADMISSION AS A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT.

---

“It is also trite that the court can convict on a confessional statement alone where it is clear, positive and unequivocal as to the guilt of the accused. The retraction of a confessional statement at the trial will not vitiate its admission as a voluntary statement. The only stricture on the court is to look for some corroboration outside the statement, however slight. See: Salawu Vs The State (1971) NMLR 249 @ 252: Aremu Vs The State (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.201) 1 @ 15 G -H: R Vs Itule (1961) 1 ALL WLR 462: Nwachukwu Vs The State (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1062) 31 @ 69 H.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

ARRAIGNMENT – CONDITIONS FOR A VALID ARRAIGNMENT

---

“The conditions for a valid arraignment of a person charged with a criminal offence were set out by this court in: Eyorokoromo Vs The State (1979) 6 – 9 SC 3 and referred to in Kajubo Vs The State (supra) @ 731 B – C to wit:
1. He shall be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause to otherwise order;
2. The charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court; and
3. He shall then be called upon to plead instantly thereto (unless there are valid reasons to do otherwise as provided in section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Law).” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

ADMISSION – CONDITIONS AN ADMISSION MUST FULFILL IN ORDER FOR IT TO GROUND A CONVICTION

---

“It is well enunciated also that a conviction on admission must fulfill the condition that the statement is free, voluntarily made, unambiguous, true, direct and positive. It must also ensure reference to the offence charged. The said principle was well entrenched in the case of John Timothy V. FRN (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt.1344) P.213 at 234.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT – INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS

---

“The Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings or decisions of lower courts unless the finding or decision is perverse, not supported by the evidence or is not the result of a proper exercise of discretion. See: Okewu Vs FRN (supra); Igwuego Vs Ezeugo (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.249) 561: Ogunyade Vs Oshunkeye (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.389) 1179: Chukwuma Vs FNR (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF INDIAN HEMP – REQUIREMENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF INDIAN HEMP.

---

“In order to secure a conviction for unlawful possession of Indian Hemp, otherwise known as cannabis sativa, under Section 19 of the NDLEA Act the prosecution must establish the following beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011:
1. That the substance was in the possession of the accused;
2. That it was knowingly in his possession;
3. That the substance is proved to be Indian Hemp (cannabis sativa); and
4. That the accused was in possession of the substance without lawful authority. See; Chukwuma Vs FRN (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 391 @ 412 C – F: Okewu Vs FRN (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 327 @ 358 C – P.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – THE TEST FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EITHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ITS RELEVANCY TO THE FACTS IN ISSUE.

---

“It is important to note that in considering the admissibility of any evidence, whether oral or documentary, the test is relevance. If the evidence is relevant to a fact in issue, it is admissible. The probative value to be attached to the evidence is a different matter. Probative value depends not only on relevance but on proof. See: Tortii Vs Ukpabi (1984) SCNLR 274: Magaji Vs The Nigerian Army (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt.1089) 338: Ogbuayinya Vs Okuda (1979) 6 – 9 SC 32: Dalek Nig. Ltd. Vs OMPADEC (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.364) 204 @ 236 G – H: ACN Vs Lamido (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 1303) 560 @ 592 D -F: U.T.C. Vs Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt.1400) 221.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHERE A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS SHOWN TO BE DIRECT AND POSITIVE, SUCH IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF GUILT OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED.

---

“The law is that a free and voluntary confession is sufficient proof of guilt if it is direct, positive and unequivocal with reference to the offence charged. See: Adio Vs The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24) 581: (1986) 4 SC 194: Mohammed Vs The State (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1045) 303: Osung Vs The State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1332) 256 @ 276 – 277 D – E: The State Vs Jimoh Salawu (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 883 & 920 – 921 G: Okoh Vs The State (2014) 2 – 3 SC 184 @ 205 lines 15 – 23.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.Criminal Procedure Law

Evidence Act, 2011

Federal High Court Act, Cap.F12, LFN 2004

Illiterate Protection Act

National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) Act Cap. N30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004.

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT