DAME MRS PATIENCE IBIFAKA JONATHAN Vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
March 1, 2018BODE THOMAS V FEDERAL JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
March 21, 2018LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2018]SC.491/2011
Areas Of Law:
Appeal, Criminal Law & Procedure, Law Of Evidence, Practice & Procedure
Summary Of Facts:
The 2nd Accused person now Respondent and one Babangida Gambo were arraigned before the Kastina State High Court on a two count charge for armed robbery an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the counts and the case proceeded to trial. In the course of the trial, the Respondent retracted his confessional statement and the court went into a mini- trial.
The learned trial judge conducted the mini-trial alongside the main trial and at the end of the mini trial, the judge admitted the Respondent’s confessional statement despite he and his co-accused alleged that the statement was obtained under duress.
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge in a considered judgement, found the accused persons guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced them to death.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgement, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, which quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and consequently discharged and acquitted the Appellant. This appeal is against the decision of the lower court.
Held
Appeal Dismissed
Issues For Determination
Ø Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that they had the powers to reformulate and indeed reformulated the defective issues determination set before them by the appellant at the court below
Ø Whether the learned Justices were right when they held that the judgment of the High Court was not supported by evidence, when the record of proceedings showed otherwise.
Ø Whether the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the process/procedure adopted by the trial judge compromised the respondent’s right to fair hearing
Rationes
REFORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY APPELLATE COURTS IN REFORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“Indeed this court has in innumerable cases made it abundantly clear that this court or the Court of Appeal can adopt or reformulate issues. In Abiola &Sons Bottling Co Ltd v 7Up Bottling Co Ltd (2012)7SC(Pt. ii)p.83.I said that:
An appeal court may adopt or even formulate issues for determination that would serve the interest of justice, or/and address the real grievance in an appeal.
In Okere v State (2016)LPELR-26057 Peter-Odili JSC said that:-
…….the court has the leeway to redraft such issues in a manner to show the light to what is really in controversy in the interest of justice and so the court seeking accuracy, clarity and brevity would design the issues to suit the purpose on ground:
In Kayode v State (2016)LPELR- 40028 Ariwoola JSC said:
“…………the court is not only obliged but entitled to reframe or reformulate issues from the competent grounds of appeal filed by the appellant for the purpose of clarity and precision and to lead to a proper determination of an appeal.
See Latunde & anor v B. Lajinfin (1939)5SC p.67, Awojugbagbe Light Industries Ltd v P.N. Chinakwe &anor(1995)4NWLR(Pt.390)p.379, Ogunbiyi v Ishola(1996)6NWLR(Pt.452)p.15.
It must be abundantly clear that an appeal court has discretion to reformulate issues for determination by both sides in the interest of justice”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ORDER TO SUCCEED
“To succeed the prosecution must prove the following elements of the offence of armed robbery under section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) There was a robbery of series of robberies;
(b) The robbery or series of robberies were carried out with offensive weapons;
(c) The accused person participated in the robbery.
See Ogudo v State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1278)p.1, Bello v State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) p.564, Alabi v State(1993)7NWLR(Pt. 307)p.511, Suberu v State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197)p.586″. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – MODE OF DISCHARGING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
“It must be said again and again that in all criminal trials the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this burden is discharged by the prosecution calling witnesses to give compelling evidence against the accused person with relevant exhibits to lend credence to oral evidence”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – INSTANCE WHERE AN OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
“It is very well settled practice in this country that where on the production of a confessional statement it is challenged on the ground that the accused person did not make it at all, the question of whether he made it or not is a matter to be decided by the learned trial judge in the course of preparing the judgment. In such circumstances objection made by counsel should be disregarded by the judge as such objection does not affect the admissibility of the statement and so the statement should be admitted as the issue of voluntariness of the statement does not arise for a decision. But where the admissibility of the statement in evidence is objected to on the ground that it was not voluntary in that the confession was beaten out of the accused person, what is attacked is the admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement and a trial within trial or mini trial must be held. See Queen v Igwe(1960) 5FSC p. 55, Ikpasa v Bendel State(1981)12 NSCCP p.300.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – PURPOSE OF A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
“The sole purpose of a trial within the main trial is to test whether the confessional statement to be tendered by the prosecution was made voluntarily by the accused person or whether he was forced or induced to make it. Once a trial within trial is ordered by the trial judge the main trial is suspended until the conclusion of the trial within trial”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – PROCEDURE IN CONDUCTING A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
“The trial within trial commences with the state calling witnesses, usually police officers who would be examined under oath by the state and cross-examined by the defence. The witnesses for the state are to satisfy the court that the accused person made the confessional statement voluntarily while the defence counsel is to show the contrary ie that the accused person was forced or induced to make the statement. After the state concludes its evidence the accused person goes into the witness box to explain to the court how he was forced, or induced to make the statement. He may call witnesses, but they can only be called after he has given evidence”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C
PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO PROOF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
“The yardstick on the standard of proof well set out in the law and as expatiated in the case of Chukwumo v FRN (Supra) above and situated in context here with the available evidence where the PW3 and PW4( victims of the crime who had difficulty with identifying the appellant as one of the assailants on the night of robbery. That linkage between the appellant and the offence being absent it can be said that an essential element of the offence of armed robbery is missing and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution now appellant. I place reliance onSuberu v The State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586 at 614 – 615; Abokokuyanro v The State (2016) LPELR – 40107 (SC); Osuagwu v The State (2016) LPELR- 4086 (SC); State v Danjumo (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 506) 512; Fatoyibo v A. &. Western Nigeria (1966) WNLR 4; People of Lagos State v Umaru (2014) LPELR – 22466 (SC)”. PER M.U.PETER-ODILI,J.S.C
REFORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – RIGHT OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO FORMULATE, RE-FORMULATE OR REFRAME ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL
“The law is trite, that an appellate court has the right or duty where appropriate, to formulate, re-formulate or reframe issue or issues for determination of an appeal especially in a situation where it is of the opinion that the issue (s) as formulated by learned counsel to any of the parties did not encompass the actual points in controversy in the appeal. In doing so however, the issue (s) to be re-formulated by the appellate court must be consistent with the ground (s) of appeal. In the instant appeal, it is noted by me, that it is not the complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant that the issues so formulated by the lower court did not arise from his grounds of appeal. See Yades (Nig) Ltd vs G Nig Ltd (2007) 14 NWLR (pt 1055) 584 or (2007) 4-5 SC 236″. PER A. SANUSI,J.S.C
Sttatutes Referred To:
Evidence Act
Robbery and the Fire Arms Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
To Get Access to Read the Full Judgement, Click on the Button Below
