CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MICHAEL OLOYE APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and one other person were charged on a two counts charge of conspiracy to commit a felony to wit armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and punishable under Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, (Cap. R.ll) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, armed robbery, contrary to Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, (Cap. R.11) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The prosecution’s case was that the Appellant who impersonated a policeman accosted one Mrs. Kudirat Olawunmi, while she was travelling towards Sango. The Appellant and the other Accused person then started to search the bus and discovered the sum of Three Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand Naira (N365,000), the property of PW1, in a polythene bag where it was kept and took the money, while the 2nd Accused person pulled out a pistol and ordered the victims to enter the bus. The Appellant and the co-accused drove off with the money in their Nissan Bluebird car, but were trailed by the victims who with the help of some policemen and some villagers caught the Appellant and his Co-accused while they were trying to escape through a river. Upon their arrest, the accused persons volunteered their statements which they confirmed before a Superior Police officer which statements were tendered in evidence and admitted in evidence. PW3- Inspector Gideon Ogunlabi tendered the statement of the Investigating Police Officer who was reported to be on a foreign mission and statements made by the accused at the police station. The defence objected to the admissibility of the statements but it was overruled by the court and admitted in evidence. The trial Court after considering the evidence of parties, found the Appellant and the Co-accused guilty of the two counts of conspiracy and robbery, they were convicted and respectively sentenced to 14 and 21 years imprisonment on each of the two counts. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was dismissed hence, a further appeal to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law to hold that Exhibit A2 was admissible as a confessional statement when the recorder of the Statement Sgt. Njoku Peters was not called as witness to tender the Statement in evidence. (Ground 3 of the Grounds of Appeal). Whether the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law to hold that the confessional statement, Exhibit A and A2 (if at all admissible) are corroborated and consistent with the other evidence presented by the Prosecution in proof of the offence of conspiracy and robbery. (Grounds 1 and 6 of the Grounds of Appeal). Whether the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law to hold that contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not material and relevant to the proof of the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy and robbery. (Grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the Grounds of Appeal).

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONSPIRACY- MEANING AND PROOF OF CONSPIRACY

---

“Conspiracy generally is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to carry out a lawful act by unlawful means. This is however said to be a matter of inference to be deduced from certain criminal acts of the suspects, which were carried out in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between the parties, which are hardly ever confined to one place. Therefore, failure to prove a substantive offence does not, ordinarily make ‘ conviction for conspiracy, in any way, inappropriate, being a separate and distinct offence in itself. In other words, conspiracy is independent of the actual offence said to have conspired to commit. See; Kaza Vs. The State (2008) 5 SCM 70; (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1085) 125, (2008) 1-6 SC151; Balogun Vs Attorney General. Ogun State (2002) 2 SC (Pt.l) 89; (2002) 4 SCM 23; (2002) 2 SCNJ 196; Folorunsho Alufohai Vs. The State (2014) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 122, (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt.1445) 172; (2015) All FWLR (Pt.765) 198.”

---

STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM AN ACCUSED THROUGH AN INTERPRETER

---

“The law is clear that whenever an interpreter is used in obtaining the statement of an accused such a statement will be inadmissible unless the interpreter is called as a witness in the tendering of the statement.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONVICTION

---

“What is more, it has long been established in law that ordinarily, a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person, whether judicial or extra judicial, if it is direct and positive and is duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient to warrant a conviction even without any corroborative evidence. The most important thing is that the court must be satisfied that the said confession is direct and positive and is properly proved, before acting on it without corroboration. Yet, the trial court is enjoined to test the truthfulness thereof. See; R. Vs. Sykes (1913) 8 Cr.App. Rep. 233; Jafiya Kopa Vs. The State (1971) 1 All NLR150.”

---

MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS- WHETHER MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS CAN DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS

---

“Minor discrepancies between a previous written statement and subsequent oral testimony will not destroy the credibility of a witness. See; Ayo Gabriel Vs. The State (1989 5 NWLR (Pt.457) 468 at 4691 Jerry Ikpenikan Vs. The State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt.1229) 449.”

---

STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – INSTANCE WHEN A VALID OBJECTION CAN BE RAISED ON AN ACCUSED PERSON’S STATEMENT

---

“The only occasion where a valid objection can be considered is where the statement of an accused is recorded through an interpreter and the accused makes his statement in his mother tongue which is recorded and later translated into English. In such a situation before the translated version is accepted as authentic, the person who interpreted the statement from the mother tongue into English must be called to testify; otherwise the translated version of the statement will at best be treated as secondary evidence while the one recorded in the mother tongue is taken to be primary evidence See: R v. Zakwakwa of Yorro (I960) 5.”
FSC2”.

---

OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – WHETHER THE MERE PULLING OUT OF A GUN ON A VICTIM WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING THE VICTIM AMOUNTS TO AN ACT OF VIOLENCE

---

“Another submission of learned counsel for the appellant that must be debunked is that the pulling out of a gun on a victim without physically assaulting the victim will not amount to an act of violence or a threat to use violence which is an essential element in the offence of robbery. By bringing out the gun, the appellant intended to instil fear into the victim’s mind so that the victim will forcefully obey whatever instructions the appellant issues to the victim. It is therefore not necessary to physically assault the victim with the weapon; the mental agony and torture experienced by the victim is enough to ground a conviction for robbery. See: Otti v. State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 675.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHETHER A VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN SOLELY SUSTAIN A CONVICTION

---

“My learned brother has commendably restated the law related to voluntary statement of an accused person, which is direct, positive and is satisfactorily proved. This court has in a myriad of decision held that such a confessional statement alone can sustain a conviction of the accused. See Bature vs State (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 320) 267: Onuoha vs State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 65) 331: Achabua vs State (1976) 12 SG 63: State vs Ironsi (1969) 1 NWLR 2003:

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 1990

Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act

(Cap. R.11) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---