CORAM

S. M. A. BELGORE

UTHMAN MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S. U. ONU

D. MUSDAPHER

Musa Dattijo Muhammad SCN

PARTIES

LT. COMMANDER STEVE OBISI APPELLANTS

CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant complained on appeal that the court martial that tried him was not properly constituted and that no trial within trial was conducted to determine whether his statement was voluntary. The complaints were not made at trial.

HELD

The court held that the court martial was properly constituted and that the appellant did not properly raise the issue of involuntariness of his statement.

ISSUES

1. Whether the General Court Martial was competent to try the Appellant in view of its composition and the condition precedent to the assumption of its jurisdiction specified in the Armed Forces Decree No.105 of 1993. 2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant based mainly on his purported confessional statement when the condition precedent to the admission of the statement viz – a trial within a trial by the Court Martial was not complied with. 3. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law to have failed to make and or reaffirm the consequential orders of refund of various sums of money made against the Cross Respondent by the Court Martial having due regard to the circumstances of this case

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Oloriegbe V. Omotosho (1993) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt 270). 386 at 402|Olatunji V. The State (2000) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 680) P. 182 at 191|Rossek V. A.C.B Ltd. (1993) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 312) P. 382 at 488

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Armed Forces Act|The Criminal Procedure Act|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT