CORAM
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim-Justice of the supreme court
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme-Justice of supreme court
haruna simon tsammani-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
MOHAMMED HARUNA
APPELLANTS
KATSINA STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, FAIR HEARING, EVIDENCE, HUMAN RIGHTS, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, MURDER
SUMMARY OF FACTS
“The Appellant, Mohammed Haruna, was arraigned alongside two others before the Katsina State High Court for the offence of culpable homicide. On 28th January 2006, the deceased, Alhaji Shaiabu Kadi, was allegedly attacked and killed by the defendants. According to prosecution evidence, the Appellant and his co-defendants chased the deceased and PW4 (Abdu Mamman) after a dispute involving water supply to animals. While PW4 escaped, the deceased fell and was attacked with an axe. The deceased tried to hide in a room at one Abu Kududi’s house, but the defendants allegedly lowered the roof of the room. The deceased was later found dead.
The prosecution called five witnesses to establish their case, while the defense presented the defendants testimonies along with three additional witnesses. The Appellant raised a defense of alibi during his testimony, claiming he was in Birnin Gwari when the incident occurred.
The Appellant’s extrajudicial statement was admitted into evidence without objection to its voluntariness at the time of tendering.
The trial Court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, prompting the Appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court.
3. The Court held that the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached as he had legal representation throughout the trial, and his counsel was given ample opportunity to file a final address but failed to do so.
4. The Court determined that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was placed at the scene of the crime by an eyewitness (PW4), and his defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not raised at the earliest opportunity.
5. The Court affirmed that the trial Court was right to rely on the Appellant’ confessional statement since no objection on grounds of voluntariness was raised at the time it was tendered in evidence.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial Court erred in failing to avail the Appellant his right of legal representation throughout his trial as guaranteed by the Constitution and his right to file a Final Address, and whether the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the decision of the Trial Judge that the Appellant s right of fair hearing was not breached.
2. Whether, despite the absence of a positive element of intention, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right or did not misdirect themselves in affirming the finding of the Trial Judge that the Prosecution had proved the case of culpable homicide against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – NATURE AND DETERMINATION OF FAIR HEARING:
“The term fair hearing can in simple terms be described as a fair trial in which both sides to the dispute are given equal opportunity to present their respective cases before an unbiased Court. It also means a trial conducted in accordance with all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties before the Court. Fair hearing is upheld by the two twin pillars of justice -audi alteram partem which means hear the other side, and nemo judex in causa sua which is, do not be a Judge in your own cause” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS FAIR HEARING:
In the circumstances of this case as highlighted above, the usual kite of lack of fair hearing cannot successfully fly because the true test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation; justice has been done in the case. – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
FAIR HEARING – CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE OF FAIR HEARING:
“The question of fair hearing is not just an issue of dogma. Whether or not a party has been denied his right to fair hearing is to be judged by the nature and circumstances surrounding a particular case, the crucial determinant is the necessity to afford the parties equal opportunity to put their case to the Court before judgment is delivered.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION – RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CRIMINAL TRIALS:
“These cases are clearly different from the instant case where the Appellant had legal representation all through the course of the trial to judgment. Failure to file an address does not mean withdrawal of appearance for the Appellant. More so, the said A.B.K. Nasir Esq., was in Court and made allocutus on behalf of the Appellant after judgment was delivered.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
FINAL ADDRESS – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE FINAL ADDRESS:
“Granted, the right to file an address cannot be denied any party by the Court because is constitutional flavour as provided in Section 294 of the Constitution. However, failure to address the Court is not fatal and does not in itself occasion a miscarriage of justice especially where parties are afforded the opportunity of filing an address and such is not taken.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE:
“The ingredients required to ground conviction in respect of the offence of Culpable Homicide by the provision of Section 221 of the Penal Code are:
1. That the deceased died;
2. That his death was caused by the defendant;
3. That the defendant intended to either kill the victim or cause him grievous bodily harm.” Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
DEFENSE OF ALIBI – PROPER TIMING FOR RAISING DEFENSE OF ALIBI:
“From the printed records of appeal, it is clear that the Appellant did not raise his defence of alibi at the earliest opportunity when he made his statement to the Police but, did so when he testified as the DW3. The Appellant raising the defence at the trial while testifying is to deliberately deny the prosecution its right and duty to investigate the defence, as has happened in this case where the Appellant while testifying at the trial stated that he was in Birnin Gwari when the incident occurred.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
“That said, where a defendant is, unequivocally pinned to the locus criminis by credible evidence, the defence of alibi will not avail him.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION BY RECOGNITION:
“It is the law that the evidence of identification by recognition is the best evidence of identity of a defendant. The Appellant was known to the PW4 before the incident and had no doubt as to the identity of the person he saw.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – PROPER TIMING FOR OBJECTING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS:
“As rightly submitted by the learned DPP for the Respondent, the Appellant did not object to the admissibility of his confessional statement on the basis of involuntariness when the statement was sought to be tendered. The issue of coercion was raised in his defence. This was not the right time to raise such objection; objections to the admissibility of a confessional statement on the basis of involuntariness must be raised timeously at the point of tendering the said statement.”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – TESTS FOR DETERMINING TRUTHFULNESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS:
“The truthfulness of the confession must be tested against all other available evidence in order to determine whether:
1. There is anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
2. Is it corroborated?
3. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested?
4. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence charged?
5. Is the confession possible?
6. Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?”– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – ATTITUDE OF SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT:
“The attitude of this Court to concurrent findings of fact is that the Court would rarely interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse or to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – VALIDITY OF ISSUES RAISED IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING GROUNDS:
“The question asked in Issue No, 2 in the Appellant’s brief, to wit, whether despite the absence of a positive element of intention, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right or did not misdirect themselves in affirming the finding of the Trial Judge that the prosecution had proved the case of culpable homicide against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt is not a valid issue for determination in this appeal because no ground of this appeal complained against or challenged the concurrent findings of the fact that the Appellant’s intention to commit the offence was proved by the prosecution evidence.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code Act
Evidence Act 2011
Criminal Code Act