MUHAMMADU LIKITA JABI V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-05) Legalpedia 04926 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 9, 2025

Suit Number: SC.113C/2019

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

MUHAMMADU LIKITA JABI

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, ARMED ROBBERY, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, CONSPIRACY, UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING, CROSS-EXAMINATION, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL, EVIDENCE LAW, LANGUAGE RIGHTS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial High Court on January 19, 2017, which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Judicial Division on May 11, 2018. The Appellant, along with one Muhammadu Bello, was charged on April 1, 2014, with a four-count charge of criminal conspiracy, armed robbery, culpable homicide punishable with death, and unlawful possession of firearms.

The charges arose from an incident that occurred on August 8, 2012, along Shigwaria, Kalama Road, Kalama LGA, Kwara State, where the accused persons allegedly conspired to rob Tanimu Inuwa and Zuwairat Abdulkarim of their Baja motorcycle and money while armed with a locally made gun. During the robbery, Tanimu Inuwa was shot and killed. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered various exhibits including the alleged murder weapon, personal effects, and confessional statements of the accused persons.

The Appellant’s case was complicated by language issues, as he claimed to understand only Fulfulde while his confessional statements were taken in Hausa. Two separate trials-within-trial were conducted to determine the admissibility of the Appellant’s confessional statements. In the first trial-within-trial concerning a statement made in Ilorin, Inspector Zakari Umar (PW2 in main trial, PW1 in trial-within-trial) testified about recording the statement. In the second trial-within-trial concerning a statement made at Kaiama, WCPL Ada Michael (PW3 in main trial) and other officers testified.

The Appellant testified in his defense, denying all charges and claiming he was tortured into making the statements. He maintained that he only understood Fulfulde and that the statements in Hausa were not properly interpreted to him. The trial court admitted both confessional statements as Exhibits 9 and 13, finding them voluntary despite the Appellant’s retraction.

After the prosecution rested its case, both accused persons testified in their defense. The Appellant denied all allegations and claimed no firearms were found on him when arrested. However, the trial court found the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based primarily on the confessional statements and circumstantial evidence, convicting both accused persons on all counts.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.
On Issue 1: The Court held that the lower court was correct in finding that it was not on record that the Appellant was denied his right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (PW2 and PW3). The Court found that the prosecution had obtained all necessary evidence from these witnesses during the trials-within-trial, and the defense had adequate opportunity to cross-examine them during those proceedings.
On Issue 2: The Court held that the lower court was right to admit and rely on the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements made in Hausa. The Court found that evidence from prosecution witnesses established that the Appellant understood and spoke both Fulfulde and Hausa languages, making the confessional statements admissible.
On Issue 3: The Court held that the lower court was correct in affirming the conviction and sentence. The Court found that the confessional statements, supported by circumstantial evidence, proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for all charges.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Judicial Division, delivered on May 11, 2018, was affirmed.
The concurrent findings of fact by both lower courts were upheld, as the Appellant failed to demonstrate that they were perverse or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

ISSUES

Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that it is not on record that the Appellant was denied his right to cross-examine the Respondent’s main witnesses?
Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that admitted and subsequently relied on the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements made in Hausa language when it is on record that the Appellant only understands Fulfulde?
Whether the lower Court was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that convicted and sentenced the Appellant to six (6) years imprisonment and death for the offence of criminal conspiracy, being in unlawful possession of firearms and culpable homicide punishable with death?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RE-EXAMINATION PROVISIONS — SECTION 215 EVIDENCE ACT

Under Section 215 of the Evidence Act, it is provided: ‘215(1) – Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then, if any other party so desires, cross-examined, then if the party calling him so desires, re-examined.’ Arguably, the provisions of Section 215(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, deals with re-examination of witnesses. It’s provided therein that re-examination should be directed on clarifying matters raised in the course of cross-examination. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

ADEQUATE CROSS-EXAMINATION OPPORTUNITY — TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL

The defence undoubtedly also had a field day and cross-examined PW2 and PW3 during the trials within trials… It is only in the realm of imagination and not law nay the adversary system of criminal justice that the learned Counsel for the Appellant would expect the Respondent (prosecution) to recall PW2 and PW3 to be cross-examined on a particular subject matter after the Respondent (Prosecution) had so to say gotten all they required from the witnesses in Examination-in-Chief. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INTERPRETATION — SECTION 36(6)(a)

Under Section 36(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended (supra) it’s provided: ‘Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to – (a) Be informed promptly in the language he understands and detail of the nature of the offence.’ The foregoing provision of Section 36(b) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) formidably outlines distinct rights accorded persons accused of criminal offences, thereby guaranteeing them a fair hearing in all its ramifications. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

COURT’S DUTY TO CONSIDER DEFENSES — KARUWA TAIHDA PRINCIPLE

It is a well settled cardinal doctrine, that the Court, be it the trial or appellate Court, has an onerous duty to consider a line of defence, even where such defence has not been raised in the course of trial by the accused person. Indeed, this Court amply reiterated the trite general principle of law in the case of KARUWA TAIHDA VS. THE STATE (1969) 1 All NLR 270, to the effect that: ‘No Court is bound to speculate on what possible defence can be open to an accused person before it, but where in a trial for homicide, the evidence suggests a line of defence, it is the duty of the trial Court to consider and deal with that defence whether or not the accused or his Counsel expressly raised the defence by the legal terminology ascribed to it by lawyers.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

LANGUAGE COMPETENCE — BURDEN OF PROOF

At page 105 of the Record, the PW1 under cross-examination by the Appellant’s defence Counsel, equally testified: ‘I am aware the accused are Fulani by tribe and they speak Fulani and equally Hausa language. I only wrote down what he told me.’ The Court below, on its part, found upon the second issue at pages 274-276 of the Record: ‘I do agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that testified in the trial within trial corroborated themselves as to the fact that the Appellant speaks Fulfude and Hausa languages.’ – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

THREE METHODS OF PROVING GUILT — ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE

It’s trite, that the guilt of an accused person can be proved beyond reasonable doubt by any of three methods: ‘(a) Evidence of an eye witness(es) account of the crime; (b) The confessional statement of the accused person; and (c) Circumstantial evidence.’– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY — INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES

It is trite, that the agreement in the offence of conspiracy is rarely in writing. The Court however, usually infers conspiracy from the circumstances surrounding the act of the co-conspirator in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY — MEETING OF MINDS

The above expression of the meeting of the minds of the appellant, the 1st accused person and one Buba at large which eventually cumulated into the actual act for which the prosecution alleged the Appellant and the 1st Accused was sufficient to ground the offence of conspiracy.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS — STANDARD FOR APPELLATE INTERFERENCE

The Appellant herein has been unable to show how the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts were perverse, not based on available evidence or had occasioned a miscarriage of justice; which are the only veritable reasons for upsetting the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts by this Court. – Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

RETRACTION VERSUS ADMISSIBILITY — DISTINCT ISSUES

The accused persons cannot therefore approbate at the same time concerning the statements which they claimed not to have made in their carious defences… If they did not make the statements in the first instance, then the language in which the statements were taken from them cannot arise. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION — SELF-EXECUTORY NATURE

The provision of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (supra) is not self-executory; the donee has the right to ask or demand for them, either orally or in writing.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

PROSECUTION’S RIGHT TO CLOSE CASE — STRATEGIC DECISIONS

Apparently, the Respondent (Prosecution) got all they needed from PW2 and PW3 before the commencement of each of the trial within trial and perhaps also in the course of the trial within trial.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE ERROR — APPELLATE STANDARD

It is obvious that the Appellant has failed to adduce any cogent or credible reason to justify this Court tampering with the findings of the lower Court. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.