Nosike Iboji V. The State

Area Of Law
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW

Summary Of Facts
The Appellant and three other persons were originally arraigned before the High Court of Delta State sitting at Ogwashi-Uku in Suit No. 014C/2010 for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder of one Smart Okwute punishable under Section 324 of the Criminal Code Law Cap. C 21 Vol. 1 Laws of Delta State, 2006. The original information was subsequently substituted by four count information which include Murder, Membership of unlawful Society, and accessory after the fact to murder. The Appellant and two others were found guilty and convicted for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder of one Smart Okwute and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment each with hard labor by the trial Court. Aggrieved with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held
Appeal Dismissed.

Issue For Determination

• Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, and the totality of evidence on record, the lower court was right when it affirmed the decision of the learned trial judge who convicted the appellant for conspiracy to commit murder.
• Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the prosecution proved the charge of conspiracy to commit murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt

Rationes
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY –DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY.
“The offence of conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. In the old case of Njovens V. State (1973) 5 SC 12

, also reported in (1975) LPELR – 2042 SC at p 57 paras. A – F, this court held as follows:
“The overt act or omission which evidences conspiracy is the actus reus and the actus of each and every conspirator must be referable and very often is the only proof of the criminal agreement which is called conspiracy. It is not necessary to prove that the conspirators, like those who murdered Julius Ceasar, were seen together coming out of the same place at the same time and indeed conspirators need not know each other. See R. V. Mayrick and Ribuffi

(1929) 21 C App. R. 94. They need not all have started the conspiracy at the same time for a conspiracy started by some persons may be joined at a later stage or later stages by others. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of the mind of the conspirators. This is hardly capable of direct proof for the offence of conspiracy is complete by the agreement to do the act or make the omission complained about Hence, conspiracy is a matter of inference from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them and in proof of conspiracy the acts or omission of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common design may be and very often are given in evidence against any other or others of the conspirators” PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“The essential ingredients of the offence of conspiracy lie in the agreement to do an unlawful act which is contrary to or forbidden by law and it does not matter whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of its unlawfulness. SeeClark V. The State (1986) 4 NWLR (pt 35) 381,

The crime of conspiracy is usually hatched with utmost secrecy and the law recognizes the fact that in such a situation, it might not always be easy to lead direct and distinct evidence to prove it Thus, it is always open to the trial judge to infer conspiracy from the facts of the case. Since the gist of the offence of conspiracy is embedded in the agreement or plot between the parties, it is rarely capable of direct proof, it is invariably an offence that is inferential! y deduced from the acts of the parties thereto which are focused towards the realization of their common or mutual criminal purpose. See Dr. Segun Ogunye V The State (2001) 2 NWLR (pt. 697) 311.

” PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY- CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY MUST BE PROOF AND TRACED TO THE ACCUSED PERSON
“In Daboh V, The State (1977) All NLR 146, (1977) 5 SC 122

, the late legal luminary, Lord Justice Udo Udoma, JSC put the matter more succinctly thus:
“It may be stated that where persons are charged with criminal conspiracy, it is usually required that the conspiracy as laid in the charge be proved, and that the persons charged be so proved to have been engaged in it On the other hand, as it is not always easy to prove the actual agreement, courts usually consider it sufficient if it be established by evidence the circumstances from which the court would consider it safe and reasonable to infer or presume the conspiracy” PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – WHETHER PARTIES TO THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY NEED ALL HAVE STARTED THE CONSPIRACY AT THE SAME TIME.
“It is a well-established principle of law that the conspirators need not all have started the conspiracy at the same time, for a conspiracy started by some persons may be joined at a later stage or later stages by others. See Njovens V. State (supra)

” PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AND OFFENCE IS AN OFFENCE INDEPENDENT OF THE ACTUAL OFFENCE.
“It is a known principle of law that conspiracy to commit an offence, is a separate and distinct offence and it is independent of the actual commission of the offence to which the conspiracy is related.” PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROOF CONSPIRACY.
“An offence of conspiracy can be committed where persons have acted either by an agreement or in concert. Bare agreement to commit an offence is sufficient. The actual commission of the offence is not necessary. See Silas Sule V. The State (2009) 17 NWLR (pt. 1169) 33, Ikemson V. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110) 455 at 467 – 468, Balogun V. Att Gen. Ogun State (2002) 2 SCNJ196 at 209.”

PER. J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- THE FOCUS IN AN OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY IS THE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
“The gist of the offence of conspiracy is predicted on the agreement between the parties focused towards the realization of their common criminal intent and purpose. See Patrick Njovens v. The State (1973) 5 SC 17

,” PER. S. GALADIMA J.S.C .

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY IS DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF THE ACTUAL COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE
“The offence of conspiracy is separate, distinct and independent of the actual commission of the offence to which conspiracy is related. Mere agreement to commit an offence is sufficient; its commission is not necessary. See Balogun V. Attorney General Ogun State (2002) 2 SCNJ 196 at 209 IKEMSON V. THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.110) 85 at 468

”.PER. S. GALADIMA J.S.C .

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- WHETHER PERSONS WHO DO NOT KNOW EACH OTHER CAN CONSPIRE TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
“The offence of conspiracy can exist between persons who in fact had never known or seen each other or corresponded with each other. See R vs Parnell 14 Cox 508 at 515

” PER. A. SANUSI, J.S.C

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY- TO PROVE CONSPIRACY, THE ACCUSED PERSON MUST HAVE INVENTED THE SCHEME
“In order to prove the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the accused persons should have concocted the scheme, the subject of the charge or that they originated or mooted it. Even in a situation where a conspiracy is formed and a person joins it later or afterwards, he is equally guilty with the original conspirator. See Gregory Godwin Daboh & Anor vs The State (1977) All NLKV46, Daboh v State (1977) 5SC 122.

” PER. A. SANUSI, J.S.C

Statutes Referred To
Criminal Code Law Cap C21 Vol. 1 Laws Of Delta State, 2006.