ISA BELLO V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025OLUWALOGBON MOTORS & ANOR VS NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 11231
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ILORIN
Thu May 10, 2018
Suit Number: CA/IL/C.91/2017
CORAM
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
PARTIES
MUHAMMADU LIKITA JABI APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the trial Court as 2nd Accused along with one Muhammadu Bello as 1st Accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 6(B) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R.11, LFN 2004, armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, R.11, LFN 2004, culpable homicide contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code and unlawful possession of Firearms contrary to Section 3(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R.11, LFN 2004. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to trial. The Prosecution called three witnesses and tendered thirteen (13) exhibits in proof of its case that the Appellant, the 1st Accused and one other at large on the 8th August 2012, along Shigwaria Kaiama Road, Kaiama Local Government Area of Kwara State, conspired to rob and did actually rob one Taminu Inuwa and Zuwairat Abdulkareem whilst armed with dangerous weapons which act also resulted in the death of the said Taminu Inuwa. The Appellant denied making any statement to the Police; he claimed not to know anything about the statements in issue on the ground that he does not speak Hausa the language in which the prosecution witnesses claimed to have recorded his statements. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant and the 1st Accused person for the offences as charged. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial court, the Appellant filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge was right when after agreeing that the Respondent’s witnesses (PW2 and PW3) were not cross examined in the main trial, proceeded to hold that it is not on record that the Appellant was denied the right to cross examine the witnesses. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when it admitted and subsequently relied on the Appellant’s extra judicial statements made in Hausa language to convict and sentence him to death when it is on record that the only language the Appellant understand is Fulfude. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when it held that the Respondent proved the offence of criminal conspiracy against the Appellant as required by law. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Respondent proved the offence of unlawful possession of firearm against the Appellant as required by law. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the prosecution proved the offence of culpable homicide against the Appellant as required by law. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he disregarded the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death without an identification parade. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when it relied on the Respondent’s weak, unsubstantiated and unproven evidence to convict and sentence the Appellant to death.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. LAW OF EVIDENCE
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES – CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES
“The provision of Section 215(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 equally relied on by the learned trial Judge is quite clear on this point. It says:-
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.
By the above provision, it would seem that the constitutional right of the Accused under Section 36(6)(D) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to cross-examine witnesses is subject to a correlate duty of the Accused person to desire and or demand such right. Clearly, and even from Hohfelds philosophy Right is a correlative to duty, where there is no duty there can be no right. But the converse is not necessarily true as there may be duties without rights.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. LAW OF EVIDENCE
RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER THE MERE RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BY AN ACCUSED PERSON RENDERS SAME INADMISSIBLE
“Indeed, it is trite law that mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an Accused person does not make such statement inadmissible or worthless and untrue in considering his guilt. See: Silas Ikpo Vs. The State (1996) 1 NILR 59 (SC); Uluebeka Vs. The State (2000) 4 SC (PT. 1) 203; and Idowu Vs. The State (2000) 7 SC (PT. 11) 50”.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONFESSION – IMPORTANCE OF CONFESSION BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“Finally, on this point, confession of an Accused person to the commission of a crime plays a major part in the determination of his guilt and a Court of law is entitled to convict on the confession as in the instant case if it comes to the conclusion that the confession is voluntary.
This is because the confession itself puts an end to the rough and speculative edges of criminal responsibility in terms of mens rea and actus reus.
See: Okeke Vs. The State (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25 (SC).”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- WHEN IS THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY ESTABLISHED?
“Indeed, the offence of conspiracy is established once it is shown in evidence that the criminal design alleged is common to all the suspects. The Courts tackle the offence of conspiracy as a matter of inference to be deduced from certain criminal acts or inactions of the parties concerned. The bottom line of the offence is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators. See: Oduneye Vs. The State (2001) 13 WRN 88 (SC); Nwosu Vs. The State (2004) 15 NWLR (PT. 897) 466.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
OFFENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS- ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
“The essential ingredient of the offence of unlawful possession of firearms is the fact of being found in possession of firearms within the meaning of the Act and the lack of licence to possess same. See: Bille Vs. The State (2016) 15 NWLR NWLR (Pt. 1536); The State Vs. Oladotun (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1256) 543 at 560 – 569; Momodu Vs. The State (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 447) 67.”
\
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE BASED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“The law is that a free and voluntary confession of guilt made by an Accused person, if it is direct and positive is sufficient to warrant his conviction without any corroborative evidence as long as the Court is satisfied of the truth of the confession. See: Effiong Vs. The State (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 562) 362; Uluebeka Vs. The State (2000) 4 SC (PART 1) 203; Idowu Vs. The State (2000) 7 SC (PT. 11) 50; Alarape Vs. The State (2001) 14 WRN 1 SC; Oseni Vs. The State (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1242) 138; Ibrahim Vs. The State (2011) 1 NWLR (PT. 1227) 1; Bright Vs. The State (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1302) 297; Musa Vs. The State (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1286) 59.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
DEFENCE OF ALIBI – DUTY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO RAISES THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI
“As a matter of law, it is the bounden duty of an Accused to raise the defence of alibi timeously and/or at the earliest available opportunity and usually on first contact with the Police. This is to enable the Police to carry out their own imperative duty of investigating such defence of alibi. Failure of an Accused to raise the defence of alibi timeously vitiates the defence. See: Nwaturuocha Vs. The State (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1242) 170; Adeyemi Vs. The State (2011) 5 NWLR (PT. 1239) 1; Rasaki Vs. The State (2011) 16 NWLR (PT. 1273) 251. It is also incumbent on an Accused who wishes to say he was not at the scene of crime (alibi) to furnish full particulars and details of his where about on the date and time in question to the Police, so that the Police would not go astray in carrying out their duty of investigating the defence of alibi. See: Nwaturuocha Vs. The State (supra).”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
IDENTIFICATION PARADE- INSTANCE WHEN AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL BE UNNECESSARY
“It is trite law that where as in the instant case, an Accused person by his confession has identified himself, there would be no need for any further Identification Parade. See: Archibong Vs. The State (2004) 1 NWLR (PT. 855) 488; and Usung Vs. The State (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 462) 1203.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Evidence Act, 2011|Penal Code|Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, R.11, LFN 2004|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
