CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MANNIR ABDULLAHI   APPELLANTS

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as accused person was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Abuja on one count charge for dealing in 1.050 kilogram of Indian hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug without lawful authority contrary to section 11(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge against him. The trial Court adjourned the case severally on account of the forensic report not being ready and review of facts. Upon conclusion of these, the court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to two years’ imprisonment for dealing in Indian hemp. Dissatisfied by the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal of Appellant for lack of merit. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether there was enough admissible evidence before the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal upon which they affirmed the conviction of the appellant (Ground 1)

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that Exhibits P1 – P7 which were tendered by the prosecution from the bar were properly tendered and admitted (Grounds 2 & 4)

3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the appellant admitted in his confessional statement that he sells Indian hemp as an occupation and that the confession was an admission that he knew what he was charged with and had committed the offence as alleged. (Ground 3)”

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CERTIFICATES OF SPECIFIED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS – SECTION 55 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011.

---

“Section 55 of the Evidence Act 2011 deals with certificates of specified government officers. It provides in section 55(1) and (2) as follows:-
“55(1) Either party to the proceeding in any criminal case may produce a certificate signed by the Government Pharmacist, the Deputy Government Pharmacist, an Assistant Government Pharmacist, a Government Pathologist or Entomologist or the Accountant-General, or any other Pharmacist so specified by the Government Pharmacist of the Federation or of a State, any pathologist or entomologist specified by the Director of Medical Laboratories of the Federation or of a State, or any accountant specified by the Accountant-General of the Federation or of a State {whether any such officer is by that or any other title in the service of the State or of the Federal Government), and the production of any such certificate may be taken as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1J of this section any certificate issued and produced by any officer in charge of any laboratory established by the appropriate authority may be taken as a sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it.” PER K. B. AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

---

OFFENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF DRUG – CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED SUMMARILY FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF DRUGS

---

“Where an accused person is arraigned before a criminal court for unlawful possession of lndian hemp and pleads guilty, he can be convicted summarily once the trial court is satisfied that the facts presented in support of the charge supports the plea of guilty.” PER K. B. AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS –WHETHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS CAN BE TENDERED FROM THE BAR?

---

“The law is trite that public documents can be tendered from the bar, particularly where the procedure is not contested as it is with the case at hand. The appellant, having consented to the procedure adopted, cannot now be heard to complain. It is too late in the day. See Ariori Vs. Elemo (1983)1 SC 13.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS

---

“The settled position of the law is that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts unless such findings are perverse, are not supported by the evidence on record or where there is a clear error of law or fact on the face of the record, which had occasioned a miscarriage of justice, See Ogundiyan Vs The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.181) 519 @ 528 – 529 H – A; Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 @ 528 C – D; Nasamu Vs The State (1979) 6 – 9 SC 153: Mainagge Vs Gwamma (2004)14 NWLR (Pt. 893) 323.” PER. K M.O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF COURTS – APPROACH OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS

---

“It is however, settled law that this Court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, does not make a practice of setting aside concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts except in exceptional circumstances, such as where the findings are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court to be perverse, contrary to substantive law or procedure etc, none of which has been demonstrated to apply to this case” PER W.S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – SECTION 102 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

---

“Section 102 of the new Act provides that:
The following documents are public documents:
(a) documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts –
(i) Of the sovereign authority;
(li) Of official bodies and tribunals;
(iii)Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or
elsewhere; and
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.” PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS –ADMISSIBILITY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT

---

“…the only pieces of secondary evidence of public documents that are admissible in respect of the original documents (of course the original documents themselves are admissible, see, Onubruchere and Anor v Esegine(1986) 1 NSCC 343 at 350; Iteogu v LPDC (2009) 17 NWLR (pt 1I7I) 614, 634) are the certified copies thereof but no other secondary evidence, Minister of Lands W. N. v Azikiwe (1969) 1 All NLR 49; Onubruchere and Anor v Esegine (supra); Araka v Egbue 120031 33 WRN 1; SPDC v Aswani Textile Industries Ltd 119911 3 NWLR (pt 180) 496, 505; Ojibah v Ojibah (1991)5 NWLR (pt 191) 296,312; Nzekwu v Nzekwu (1989)2 NWLR (pt 104) 373; Tabik Investment Ltd and Anor v Guarantee Trust Bank Plc (20I1)6MJSC (pt 1) 1, 21; Dagaci of Dere v Dagaci of Ebwa (2006)30 WRN 1; Iteagu v LPDC (supra) 614, 634 etc. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

---

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS –REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY COPIES OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

---

“Put differently, in the absence of the original documents themselves only such, properly, certified copies are admissible as secondary copies of public documents “but no other kind of secondary evidence,” G and T. I. Ltd and Anor v Witt and Bush Ltd (2011) LPELR -1333 (SC) a2, C-E; Araka v Egbue (supra) Minister of Lands, Western Nigeria v Azikiwe (supra) Nzekwu v Nzekwu (supra]; Tabik Investment Ltd and Anor v Guarantee Trust Bank Plc (supra); Dagaci of Dere v Dagaci of Ebwa (supra); Iteogu v LPDC (Supra) etc.” PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act, 2011

2. National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT