JAMILU SANI V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 48076 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Sokoto

Fri Jul 18, 2025

Suit Number: CA/S/174C/2024

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Muhammad Liman Justice of the Court of Appeal

Victoria Toochukwu Nwoye Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

JAMILU SANI

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant (1st accused) and one Yawale Salisu were arraigned before the High Court of Zamfara State on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery under Sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act, Cap. R11 of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. At the trial, the prosecution called two witnesses and tendered their respective statements to the police, marked Exhibits 1 and 1A and 2 and 2A. The Appellant and his co-accused testified in their defence but called no other witness. The charges arose from an incident on 24/08/2018 at about 1800hrs where the accused persons allegedly criminally conspired among themselves to abduct, rob and kill one Ibrahim Umar, a commercial motorcyclist. Eventually, Ibrahim Umar’s body was found in a bush situated at Gidan Badda in Kasuwar Daji District of Kauran Namoda Local Government Area of Zamfara State. Following conclusion of evidence and addresses by the prosecution and the defence, the trial Court delivered its judgment on 3/7/2024, convicting the Appellant of the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, and sentencing him to life imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. However, the Appellant’s co-accused was discharged and acquitted. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal through a notice of appeal filed on 20/9/2024.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The judgment of the Lower Court delivered on 3/7/2024 was set aside.

3. The Appellant was discharged and acquitted.

4. The court held that while conspiracy requires the agreement of two or more persons, conviction can stand independently if evidence against each accused is separable, but in this case, there was no corroborative evidence to support the Appellant’s retracted confessional statement.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Honourable trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery despite the acquittal of his co-accused?

2. Whether the guilt of the Appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced before the trial Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

NATURE OF CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out an unlawful act. Therefore, conspiracy need not be direct and may be inferred from the facts of the act and the common unlawful ends propelling the act. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ESSENCE OF CONSPIRACY – AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES

In USHIE V. STATE (2018) 11 NWLR (Prt. 1629) 139, it was held that the pith and substance of the offence of conspiracy do not lie merely in the intention or thoughts of two or more persons to do an unlawful act by unlawful means, but is the agreement between them to carry out their unlawful intention.– Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – REQUIREMENT OF AGREEMENT

In order to prove the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the element of agreement to do something which is unlawful or to do something which is lawful by unlawful means. By its nature, the offence of conspiracy is established once the prosecution adduces credible evidence which is not debunked by the accused, to show criminal design and intent.– Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

CONVICTION OF CO-CONSPIRATOR – POSSIBILITY WITH CO-CONSPIRATOR AT LARGE

Before proceedings to examine the quality of the evidence been relied upon by the trial court in convicting the Appellant for the charge of conspiracy, let me restate the law that a person can be convicted of conspiracy with a co-conspirator who is at large. All that is required is evidence on record in support of the conviction. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

INFERENTIAL NATURE OF CONSPIRACY – DEDUCTION FROM ACTS

Furthermore, conspiracy is an offence inferentially deduced from the acts of the parties thereto, which are focused towards the realization of their common or mutual purpose.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

DIFFERENT EVIDENCE AGAINST CO-ACCUSED – SEPARATE CONCLUSIONS

When the evidence against one accused is different from that against the other, a different conclusion will certainly arise at which one may be discharged and the other convicted. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

SAME EVIDENCE AGAINST CO-ACCUSED – EQUAL TREATMENT PRINCIPLE

Conversely, when the evidence against two or more accused persons in a criminal case is in all material respect the same, and doubts resolved by the trial Judge in favour of one of the accused persons, the same doubt should be resolved in favour of the other or others. Consequently, if one is acquitted and discharged, the other or others should also be acquitted and discharged.– Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ELEMENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVICTION

To ground a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution has the duty of proving beyond reasonable doubt that: a) there was a robbery; b) the robbers were armed with offensive weapons as at the time of the robbery, and c) the accused person participated in the robbery. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

NATURE OF CONFESSION – DEFINITION AND SCOPE

A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating, suggesting the inference that he committed the crime and this includes both extra-judicial and judicial confessions. It also includes an incriminating admission made that is not direct and positive and short of a full confession. In other words, a confession is an acknowledgement of guilt, which often includes details about the crime alleged.– Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

CONVICTION ON RETRACTED CONFESSION – LEGAL POSITION

A Court may convict an accused person solely on the basis of his confession even when he has retracted or resiled from the confession. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

DENIAL OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY

Furthermore, the mere assertion by an accused person that he did not make a confessional statement does not render it inadmissible nor reduce the weight the trial Court will attach to such evidence. – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

TESTS FOR RETRACTED CONFESSION – VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Where an accused person denies, retracts, contends or resiles his confessional statement, the Court must conduct some tests to verify, ascertain and confirm the truthfulness, voluntariness and authenticity of the said confessional statement of the accused person that is being denied. These tests includes the followings: a) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? b) Is it corroborated in any way? c) Are the relevant statements of fact made in it (most likely to be) true as far as they can be tested? d) Did the defendant have opportunity of committing the offence? e) Is the confession possible? f) Is the alleged confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established? – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

CORROBORATION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – REQUIREMENT FOR SAFETY

In the instant, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the Appellant’s confessional statement and the trial Court was apparently not guided by the set down tests in verifying, ascertaining and confirming the truthfulness as well as the authenticity of the Appellant’s confessional statement, exhibit 2A. The obligation on the trial Court in the circumstances where the Appellant denied making the statement was to find evidence outside the confessional statement which verified the truth of the contents. In the absence of any evidence, verifying the truth of the statement, it is unsafe to convict on such unverifiable statement.– Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.