AREAS OF LAW:
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACT:
The Appellant and six others were arraigned before a High Court of Justice, Oyo State, for conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to Section 5 (b) and punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act 1990, five counts of armed robbery punishable under section 1 (2) (a) of the Act. Before commencement of trial, two of the accused persons were reported dead while the third accused person was at large and their names were consequently struck out of the suit. At the trial, the remaining accused persons pleaded not guilty. Upon closure of the Prosecution’s case a no case submission was made for the four accused persons which was upheld for the 4th accused person and he was discharged and acquitted on the charge of sheltering armed robber. The remaining accused persons were called upon to enter their defence whereupon each gave a sworn testimony without any witness. Counsel for the parties addressed the Court. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted each of the accused person on count 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, but acquitted and discharged each of them on count 5.  They were sentenced to death by hanging. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the Appellant have appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:
Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
➢    Whether the ingredients of the offences of conspiracy to commit the offence of armed robbery and armed robbery were proven beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the appellant

➢    Whether the Court of Appeal could rightly sustain the appellant’s conviction and consequent sentencing based on the alleged confessional statement made by the appellant to {sic}.

➢    Whether the death sentence on the appellant is warranted

RATIONES:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT RULES MADE PROVISION FOR SUB-ISSUES IN AN APPEAL
“The two issues have sub-issues and there is no provision for sub-issues in the Supreme Court Rules. See Salami & Anor v. Lawal (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. 11) 242. Sub-issues do not aid in the proper determination of the real issues in controversy.”   PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

APPEAL – OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO A RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL
“In an appeal, a respondent has three options: to adopt the issues formulated by the appellant, to give the issues a slant in savour of his own side of the case or he may formulate his own issue but the issues so formulated must be derivable from the grounds of appeal.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST FLOW FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“Issues for determination formulated either by the appellant or the respondent must flow from the grounds of appeal. See Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41.”   PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – IMPLICATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION NOT BASED ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“An issue for determination not formulated from, or based on, the grounds of appeal is completely useless and must be discountenanced in the determination of the appeal.  See Omo v. J.S.C. Delta State (2007) 7 SC {Pt. 11) 1.”   PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

CONSPIRACY- MEANING OF CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or to do a legal act by an illegal means. People who agree among themselves to embark on an illegal venture or to achieve a legitimate end by an illegal means do not invite a witness or witnesses to attest to their agreement.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

CONSPIRACY – WHETHER THE ACTUAL COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE IS AN INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“Usually the facts surrounding the execution of the intention expressed in the agreement will determine whether those charged with the commission of crime acted individually or in pursuance of a prior agreement to effect an unlawful purpose or to effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Bare agreement to commit an offence suffices. While the actual commission of the offence is not a necessary ingredient of the offence of conspiracy, the actual commission of the offence may show common intention formed before it. See Patrick Ikemson & Ors v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 477; Clark v. The State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 381; Arinze v. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 158.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

ARMED ROBBERY- INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION OF ARMED ROBBERY
“To succeed in establishing the commission of armed robbery, the prosecution is bound to prove:
(a) that there was robbery;
(b) That the appellant was armed at the time of the robbery or it was known to him or ought to be known to him that a member of his gang was armed at the material time, and
(c) That the appellant participated in the armed robbery. See Eke v. State (2011) 1-2 SC (Pt. 11} 219 at 234-235 SC; Okosi v. A G Bendel State (1989} 1 NWLR (Pt. 100} 642.“ PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C
CONFESSION – DEFINITION OF CONFESSION – SECTION 28 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011
“Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 defines a confession as:
“S.78: A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

CONFESSION – STATEMENTS THAT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FULL CONFESSION
“The law of confession is concerned mainly with statements made by an accused person to the Police or other law enforcement agents. Such statement may not necessarily amount to a full confession. See Obosi v. State (1965) N MLR 119.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

CONFESSION – NATURE OF CONFESSION  SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
“See Silas Ikpo Vs The State (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.421) 540 at 554 where Igun, JSC. (As he then was) said –
“The law is clear that a free and voluntary confession of guilt, whether judicial or extra-judicial if it is direct and positive and properly established, is sufficient proof of guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such confession See also R. Vs Sykes (1913) 8 CAR 233 and Achabua Vs The State (1976) 12 S.C. 63 at 68-69.” PER M. MOHAMMED, C.J.N

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- WHEN DOES AN OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY COMES TO AN END
“The offence of conspiracy is committed where two or more persons agreed to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. Conspiracy is a continuing offence, other persons may join an existing conspiracy and become parties to it. So the conspiracy will continue to subsist as long as the parties to it agree. It comes to an end by performance or abandonment of the act. In all cases of conspiracy the court must be satisfied with evidence of complicity of the accused person/s in the offence. See Adejobi & anor v State (2011) 6-7 SC (Pt iii) p.65 Bright v State (2012) ISC (Pt ii) P47.“PER O.RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

STATUTES REFERRED TO:
Evidence Act, 2011
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act LFN 1990