Legalpedia Citation: (2017-04) Legalpedia 73684 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Apr 7, 2017

Suit Number: SC.583/2014

CORAM

Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Musa Dattijo Muhammad Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ejembi Eko Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Sidi Dauda Bage Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

OKOKON JOHN

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, SELF-DEFENCE, MANSLAUGHTER, ILLITERATES PROTECTION LAW, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Okokon John, was charged before the High Court of Cross River State on a one-count charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 325 of the Criminal Code. He was alleged to have unlawfully killed one Miriam Sampson on October 13, 2011, at No. 34 Esierebom Street, Calabar.

The appellant and the deceased lived in the same compound and shared a common kitchen built by the deceased near her room. The deceased had complained that smoke from the appellant’s cooking was causing her inconvenience, and she advised him to build his own kitchen. On October 13, 2011, the appellant wanted to cook in the kitchen but was prevented from doing so by the deceased. A struggle ensued between them, and the deceased allegedly hit the appellant on his back with a piece of firewood. The appellant retaliated by grabbing the firewood from the deceased and hitting her on the head. She died from her injuries the following day, October 14, 2011.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called two witnesses and tendered two exhibits: the appellant’s extra-judicial statement (Exhibit 1) and a stick (Exhibit 2). The appellant testified on his own behalf and did not call any other witness. The trial Court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment with hard labor. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court held that Exhibit 1, the appellant’s confessional statement, was properly admitted in evidence.
3. The court affirmed that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW2) was not hearsay but direct evidence of what they observed and did following the incident.
4. The court held that the defense of self-defense was not available to the appellant in the circumstances of the case.
5. The court affirmed that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The conviction and sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter were upheld.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offense of manslaughter on evidence that is substantially hearsay?
2. Whether Exhibit 1 was properly admitted in evidence having regard to the provisions of Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Cross River State?
3. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to affirm the finding of the learned trial judge that the defense of self-defense did not avail the appellant in the circumstances of this case?
4. Whether, having regard to the evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DEFINITION AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

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 Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden of proof in criminal proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt but not proof beyond a shadow of doubt… What is required is that the Court must satisfy itself that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. That the evidence must be so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in the accused person’s favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence, ‘of course it is possible but not in the least probable.’ – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

INGREDIENTS REQUIRED TO PROVE MANSLAUGHTER – CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN ACTION AND DEATH

In order to establish the offence of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the act of the accused, which was unlawful, that caused the death of the deceased. A causal link must be established and proved by the prosecution between the act of the accused and the death of the deceased.” – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

EFFECT OF CONFESSION – SUFFICIENCY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT FOR CONVICTION

A confessional statement which is direct, positive and voluntarily made is sufficient proof of the guilt of an accused and the Court is entitled to base a conviction on it.”– Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT EVIDENCE AND HEARSAY – WHEN EVIDENCE OF A STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE

Evidence of a statement made to a witness called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made.” – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

SELF-DEFENCE – CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF SELF-DEFENCE

The law is settled that the defence of self-defence, if successful is a complete answer to a charge of murder or manslaughter… The defence of self-defence is thus only available to an accused person where he proves that at the time of the killing, he was in reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm and that it was necessary at the time to use the force which resulted in the death of the deceased in order to preserve himself from the danger. The force used by the accused person must be proportionate to the force used or immediately threatened against him and reasonable in the circumstances in which it was used. – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

ILLITERATES PROTECTION LAW – PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The purpose of the Illiterates Protection Law is to protect and safeguard illiterates from fraud and exploitation. It is to prevent the writer of a document which creates legal rights from enforcing it against the interest of an illiterate unless he has strictly complied with the law.– Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

SUPREMACY OF THE EVIDENCE ACT OVER STATE LAW ON EVIDENCE – CONSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

The Evidence Act, 2011 made adequate provision for the admissibility of a confessional statement, as Exhibit 1. In the event of any conflict between the Evidence Act and the Illiterates Protection Law, 2004 of Cross-River State, on whether a relevant piece of evidence is admissible, the Evidence Act prevails. The reasons is obvious and constitutional. Evidence is item 23 on the Exclusive Legislative List, in respect of which, by virtue of Section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the Cross-River State House of Assembly cannot enact any law on.– Per Ejembi Eko, J.S.C.

PROOF OF MANSLAUGHTER – INTENT NOT REQUIRED

In proof of the offence of manslaughter, it is not necessary to prove any intent to kill or do grievous harm provided that there is proof that the unlawful act of the accused caused some harm to the deceased, which harm caused his death. – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

PROPORTIONALITY IN SELF-DEFENCE – NECESSITY AND REASONABLENESS

The force used by the accused person must be proportionate to the force used or immediately threatened against him and reasonable in the circumstances in which it was used. There must be reasonable grounds for the accused person to believe that the only way he could escape death or grievous bodily harm to himself was to kill the assailant.” – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE AS BASIS FOR ADMISSIBILITY

Generally, admissibility of evidence including documentary evidence is based on relevance. Once the evidence is probative to the fact in issue, it is relevant and therefore, admissible.” – Per Musa Dattijo Muhammad, J.S.C.

SELF-DEFENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF AND AVAILABILITY OF DEFENCE

The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence of self-defence. It is also trite that whether the defence will succeed depends on the facts of each case. – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C.

EFFECT OF PROPERLY ADMITTED CONFESSION – JUDICIAL RELIANCE ON CONFESSION

It is settled law that a confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth and the Court can convict on that statement alone.– Per Sidi Dauda Bage, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
2. Criminal Code, Cap. C16, Vol. III, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria, 2004
3. Evidence Act, 2011
4. Illiterates Protection Law, Cap. 56, Laws of Cross River State (now Section 1 of the Illiterates Protection Law, Vol. 4 Cap. 11 of 2004)
5. Police Act, Cap. P19, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

OTHER CITATIONS