Legalpedia Citation: (2024-07) Legalpedia 32207 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT GOMBE

Thu Jul 18, 2024

Suit Number: CA/G/117C/2022

CORAM

Ali Abubakar Aabandi Aumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

OLUCHE ONE

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

Criminal Law

Evidence

Confessions

Fair Hearing

Criminal Procedure

Appeal

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Oluchi One, was charged before the High Court of Gombe State with conspiracy, armed robbery, and culpable homicide, all punishable under Sections 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and Section 221 of the Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant and others conspired to rob and murder a victim, stealing the victim’s car and valuables. The prosecution presented confessional statements (Exhibits B, B1, and B2) and additional circumstantial evidence linking the Appellant to the crime.

The Appellant argued that the confessional statements were obtained under duress and that they had been altered. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted the Appellant on all counts, and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed, raising issues with the confessional statements, the sufficiency of evidence, and procedural lapses during the trial.

HELD

1. Whether the trial court was correct in admitting Exhibits B, B1, and B2, despite alleged alterations ?
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt ?
3. Whether the failure to call certain witnesses by the prosecution affected the fairness of the trial ?
4. Whether procedural lapses, particularly the failure to caution witnesses, affected the fairness of the trial ?

ISSUES

1. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial court was correct in admitting and relying on Exhibits B, B1, and B2, as the alterations were immaterial and did not affect the validity of the confessions.
2. The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, proving the Appellant’s involvement in the robbery and homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The court held that the prosecution had no obligation to call all possible witnesses as long as the evidence presented was sufficient.
4. The failure to caution witnesses, though a procedural lapse, did not result in a miscarriage of justice and did not undermine the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – EFFECT OF MINOR ALTERATIONS

The trial court was correct in admitting confessional statements that contained minor alterations, provided those changes did not affect the material substance of the confession. In this case, the alterations were immaterial, and the core facts implicating the Appellant remained intact. The confessions were corroborated by other evidence in the case and were rightly admitted.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION

Circumstantial evidence is admissible and can form the basis for a conviction if it irresistibly points to the guilt of the accused and excludes other reasonable hypotheses. The Appellant’s possession of the deceased’s vehicle and personal items shortly after the crime, combined with his confessional statements, constituted compelling circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FAILURE TO CAUTION WITNESSES – IMPACT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE TRIAL

Failure to caution witnesses in accordance with the Evidence Act does not automatically invalidate their testimony unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the lack of caution did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses or affect the outcome of the trial. The Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE DISCRETION IN CALLING WITNESSES – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

The prosecution is not required to call every potential witness in a criminal trial. As long as the evidence presented is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has discretion in determining which witnesses to present. In this case, the evidence—confessions and circumstantial proof—was sufficient.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE, CONFESSIONS EVALUATION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – RELATION TO OTHER EVIDENCE

Confessional statements are admissible and carry significant probative value in criminal trials, particularly when corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the confessions were supported by circumstantial evidence, and the trial court’s reliance on the confessions alongside other proof was appropriate.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE BURDEN OF PROOF – DISPROVING A CONFESSION ONCE ADMITTED

Once the prosecution submits a valid confessional statement, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the confession was obtained under duress or through other improper means. The Appellant’s failure to provide credible evidence to discredit the confession allowed the trial court to rely on it as valid.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

APPEAL, EVIDENCE SCOPE OF REVIEW ON APPEAL – FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS

Appellate courts will not interfere with the factual findings of trial courts unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. In this case, the trial court’s findings were based on credible evidence, and the Court of Appeal saw no reason to disturb the decision.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROPER EVALUATION OF DEFENSES – CONSIDERATION OF ACCUSED’S DEFENSES

The trial court is obligated to thoroughly evaluate any defenses raised by the accused. In this case, the trial court properly considered the Appellant’s claim of duress, but found the confessions and circumstantial evidence more credible. The court’s evaluation was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY – INFERENCE OF GUILT

The Appellant’s possession of the deceased’s car and other personal items shortly after the crime led to an inference of guilt, especially as the Appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for possession. This was a key piece of evidence supporting the conviction.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING, PROCEDURE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES – EFFECT ON THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Minor procedural irregularities, such as the failure to caution witnesses, do not automatically invalidate a trial unless they result in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the trial was conducted fairly, and the procedural lapses did not affect the fairness of the trial or the Appellant’s rights.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – RELATION TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The weight given to circumstantial evidence and confessional statements depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Here, the confessions and circumstantial evidence provided a strong basis for conviction, as they corroborated each other.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FAILURE TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE – PRECLUDING OBJECTIONS ON APPEAL

The Appellant’s failure to object to the admissibility of evidence, including the confessional statements, during the trial precluded him from raising those objections on appeal. The trial court’s admission of the evidence was lawful, and the objections raised later were without merit.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW, CONFESSIONS CONSISTENCY OF CONFESSIONS – ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE

Confessions that align with other evidence in the case strengthen the prosecution’s case. In this instance, the Appellant’s confessions were consistent with circumstantial evidence, validating the trial court’s reliance on them in convicting the Appellant.

– Per Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act

Penal Code

Evidence Act, 2011

Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT