NASIRU AUWALU A.K.A DAN MAKO OR BARACK OBAMA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

CORAM

PARTIES

NASIRU AUWALU A.K.A DAN MAKO OR BARACK OBAMA APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The operatives of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Adamawa State command with their headquarters in Yola, carried out an operation to arrest illicit dealers in narcotic drugs after surveillance. It was alleged that the Appellant mobilized others, who formed a mob, comprising of youths and others in the community to resist and frustrate their arrest. This resulted in the attack of the NDLEA operatives by the mob including the Appellant, who were armed with dangerous weapons, which resulted in the death of two operatives of the NDLEA, while the rest escaped to seek reinforcement from a nearby military checking point. With the help of the Soldiers and the Policemen, the mob was dispersed and an arrest of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants and others was made but they were later released after investigation. The 7th Defendant who was shot on the leg by one of the NDLEA operatives was later arrested the day after the incident. The 1st Defendant was arrested by the NDLEA operatives at Dumne and he led the security operatives to effect the arrest of some of his boys along with the 8th Defendant who was alleged to have planted cannabis at his house. The Appellant had fled the town but was later arrested at Belel. He was alleged to have confessed his participation in the incident to the village head of Jamatari in the Loko mob attack in which two NDLEA officers were killed. It was also alleged that 2 grammes of Diazepam and 18 grammes of Tramadol (Tramol) were found on the Appellant. The Appellant was arraigned alongside seven (7) others on a seven-count charge, for which he pleaded not guilty. During the trial at the lower court, the Prosecution called ten (10) witnesses. Each of the Defendant testified and the defence called ten witnesses; with the 8th Defendant calling additional two witnesses. At the end of the trial, the lower court found the Appellant guilty for Conspiracy and Obstruction of officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) from carrying out their lawful duty for which he was convicted and sentenced. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Was the trial court right to have held that the Respondent proved the case of conspiracy and obstruction of officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency in carrying out their duty beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant as charged to ground the conviction and sentence of the Appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

“Starting with the offence of conspiracy, it has been generally defined as an agreement by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful/illegal act, coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement’s objective. It is simply put as a meeting of two or more minds to plan an unlawful or illegal act or to carry out a legal act through illegal means. See, State Vs. Salawu (2011) 12 SC (PT IV) P. 19; 18 NWLR (PT 1279) P. 580; (2011) LPELR – 8252 (SC); Kayode Vs. State (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC), Bouwar Vs. State (2016) LPELR – 26054 (SC) and Ajayi Vs. State (2013) LPELR – 19941 (SC). –

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – WHAT CONSTITUTES THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY?

“The mere agreement constitutes the offence. The proof of conspiracy need not be direct as it can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Further, where the defendants are present at the scene of the crime, the act of each of them in furtherance of their common criminal intention is taken to be the act of each and everyone of them”.-

CONTRADICTION IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE THAT WOULD ENTITLE AN ACCUSED PERSON TO AN ACQUITTAL

“It is the law that where there are minor variations in the evidence of witnesses which are not material or substantial, it goes to no issue and would be considered as different versions or descriptions of the same event. The important thing is that the account given by the different witnesses boil down to the same thing, in this case, the active participation of the appellant at the scene and the particular role he played in conspiracy with others and actually obstructed the NDLEA officers who were on their lawful duty. It is not in all cases where there are discrepancies or contradictions in the prosecution’s case that an accused person would be entitled to an acquittal. But, where the contradictions or discrepancies are on material points in the prosecution’s case which create doubt, then the accused person would be entitled to benefit there from. Minor differences/discrepancies cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In this case whether the appellant was seen sitting in the starlet car getting away from the scene after the incident or obstructed and participated in the attack and then got away from the scene with the starlet car, it is immaterial. The important thing is that he was at the scene, participated in obstructing the NDLEA officers from performing their lawful duty along with others, got away with the starlet car and was later arrested. He thereafter confessed to the role he played and gave a graphic account of the incident at the scene and how the youths were mobilized for the obstruction and attack that followed. See, Iregu Ejima Hassan Vs. The State (2016) LPELR – 42554 (SC) PP. 28-29, Paragraphs F-B, Abokokuyanro Vs. State (2016)LPELR – 40107 (SC) PP. 25 – 26, Paragraphs D-A, Oloye Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 44775 (SC) PP. 39-41, Paragraphs E-A, Gabriel Vs. The State (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 457) 468 at 469 and Jerry Ikpenikan Vs. The State (2011) 2 NWLR (PT 1229) 449”. –

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION

“A confessional statement is a first hand account of the incident given by an accused person, no evidence can be better than that. On the other hand the court can convict on the confessional statement of an accused person alone once it is believed to be true, in this case it was also corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and investigators. The utilization of the confessional statement cannot be faulted. See, Kamila Vs. The State (2018) LPELR – 43603 (SC) P. 14, Paragraphs A-E where his lordship Sanusi, JSC held thus:
“A confessional statement can simply be defined as an admission by a person charged (or an accused person accused) of committing a crime at anywhere or anytime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed such crime. See Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended. It is well settled law that free and voluntary confession of guilt alone by an accused person, provided it is direct and positive and was duly made voluntary, is sufficient to ground a conviction, since a confession always remains the best proof of what he had done. See Alabi Vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 307) 5; Fabiyi Vs. State (2015) 6-7 SC (PT 1) 83. Osetola & Anor Vs. State (2012) 6 SC NJ 321; Nwachukwu Vs. The State (2002) 7 SC NJ 230; Dogo Vs. The State (2013) 2-3 SC (PT 11) 75 at 92-94.”
See, also Hassan Vs. State (2001) LPELR – 1358 (SC) P.16, Paragraphs C-F, Altine Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 45965 (CA) PP. 17-19, Paragraphs D-E, Isah Vs. State (2017) LPELR – 43472 (SC) PP.10-11, Paragraphs F-A and Fulani Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 45195 (SC) P. 15 Paragraphs B-F”. –