PATRICK ADEGBOLA V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 93594 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tue Mar 28, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CR/474/2017

CORAM

Olukayode Ariwoola JSC

John Inyang Okoro JSC

Amina Adamu Augie JSC

Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

PARTIES

PATRICK ADEGBOLA

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This charge against the accused included conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery in the house of Prophet Olayemi Idowu, armed robbery of Jimoh Bello, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

At the trial court, he was found guilty of all the charges against him. On appeal however, he was acquitted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery in the house of Prophet Olayemi Idowu and convicted for armed robbery of Jimoh Bello and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Aggrieved by the decision, he made the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower Court was right to have affirmed the conviction of appellant on counts III, IV and V for robbery, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS ADMITTED FOLLOWING A TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL

I agree with the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the above arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the voluntariness of the appellant’s confession in Exhibit Q are incompetent and invalid because of the failure or refusal of the appellant to appeal against the finding and decision of the trial Court on 27-11-2013 following the trial within trial of the voluntariness of the confession, that the appellant voluntarily made the confession. By not appealing against that decision, the appellant accepted it as correct, conclusive and binding on him and cannot be heard to argue to the contrary. See Opeyemi V State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt 1702) 403 at 434 in which this Court restated that –

“The evidence on which the conviction of the appellant was predicated include his confessional statements – Exhibit J, J1 & K. The voluntariness of the making of these statements was subjected to trial-within-trial. The learned trial Judge upon the trial-within-trial ruled conclusively that the extra-judicial statements in Exhibits J, J1 & K were made voluntarily. That decision has not been challenged. It subsists and remains binding as between the prosecutor and the appellant. In the absence of any challenge, by way of appeal, to the decision that the Exhibits J, J1 & K were voluntarily made by the appellant, he is deemed or taken to have accepted the decision.”

This Court in Lasisi V The State (2013) 6 SCM 97 at 113 held that “Once a confessional statement has been admitted following a trial within trial it would be difficult for an appellate Court to upturn it because the process is purely based on credibility of witnesses which the appellate Court is not privy to”. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DUTY OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER WHEN A PARTY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT HE THUMB-PRINTED

If the appellant did not understand the statement he thumb-printed, his legal practitioner who represented him at the trial should have raised it at the trial within trial as a feature that shows that he did not voluntarily make the statement.

In Otitoju V Governor of Ondo State & Ors (1994) SCNJ (Pt 11) 224 at 234, this Court considered that the appellant who was represented by a legal practitioner when his confessional statement was tendered at the trial Court did not raise the issue of illiteracy or lack of understanding of the content of the confession and the absence of a jurat, amongst other things, in holding that the absence of an illiterate jurat did not render the confession void. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE COURT CAN CONVICT ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS

“The law is settled that the Court can convict on the credible evidence of one witness that is believed by the trial Court. See Idiok V The State (2008) 34 NSCQR (Pt 2) 827, Emoga V The State (1997) LPELR – 1134 (SC) Nwaeze V The State (1996) LPELR – 2091 (SC). – Per E. A. Agim, JSC”

EVIDENCE – TWO BEST FORMS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION IN A CRIMINAL MATTER

“The position of the law is well settled as often expounded by this Court that in a criminal trial, the best form of evidence available to the prosecution in proving that the accused person is culpable for the offence for which he is charged with is the accused person’s own voluntary confessional statement and the next best evidence is the credible testimony of an eye witness which fixes the accused to the scene of the crime and state clearly the role played by the accused in committing the offence. See Mohammed Vs. State (2020) LPELR-52451 (SC), Sani vs. State (2020) LPELR-53905 (SC). – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC”

EVIDENCE – WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF AN EYE WITNESS IS DIRECT AND POSITIVE

“As ably demonstrated in the lead judgment, even without the proved confessional statement of the Appellant in Exhibit “Q”, the evidence of PW8; a victim of the robbery, was positive, direct, credible, unchallenged, compelling and irresistible to be sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant for the offence. See Oteki v. A. G., Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (pt. 24) 648 at 650, Ogala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 175) 509, Nwaeze v. State (1996) 2 NWLR (pt. 428) 1, Emiator v. The State (1975) 9 – 11 SC, 112, Magaji v. Nigerian Army (2008) 8 NWLR (pt. 1089) 338 at 393. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC”