RAMONI ANIMASHAUN V THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 96552 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Jul 4, 2025

Suit Number: SC.537/2020

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

RAMONI ANIMASHAUN

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ARMED ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE, RETRACTION OF CONFESSION, CORROBORATION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Ramoni Animashaun, was arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, along with other co-accused persons on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to and punishable under Sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap R.11. The Appellant and his co-accused were specifically alleged to have attacked one Raheem Lateef (PW1) with a gun on February 28, 2012, at Adejumo Street, Orile-Ogun, Ota, Ogun State, led him into his house, and took phones belonging to his wife and brother.

At trial, the prosecution called four witnesses: Raheem Lateef (PW1) – the victim, Hon. Femi Arowora (PW2), Corporal Muritala Buhari (PW3), and Corporal Oseni Sulaimon (PW4). The prosecution also tendered four exhibits including one locally made pistol and cartridge. PW1 gave eyewitness testimony that the Appellant accosted him with a gun, led him into his room, took his Techno phone and demanded money.

The Appellant made a confessional statement (Exhibit A) at pages 30-31 of the records wherein he gave a detailed graphic account of how he and his co-accused went to rob the victim with a “small locally made pistol,” how they entered the premises, attacked the victim in his room, demanded his property, and how they fled when alerted community members came for their arrest. The Appellant later retracted this confessional statement during trial.

The Appellant put up a defense of alibi and denied ever robbing anybody. He also denied making Exhibit A. The trial court found that the evidence of PW1-3 on identification was unsatisfactory and discredited same. The trial court also expunged the evidence of PW6 from the record because the witness did not attend court to be cross-examined. However, the trial court relied on Exhibit A (the confessional statement) and the testimony of PW1 to convict and sentence the Appellant to death by hanging on May 24, 2017.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, which on June 25, 2020, delivered judgment affirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Appellant’s counsel argued that there were material contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the type of gun recovered (PW4 calling it different names), that the Appellant was not sufficiently identified, and that the confessional statement should not have been relied upon without testing its veracity.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved all the essential ingredients of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The court held that the three essential ingredients of armed robbery are: (a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies; (b) that the robbery was an armed robbery; (c) that the accused was one of those who participated in the robbery.
4. The court found that the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit A) was positive, direct, and unequivocal, providing a graphic account of the commission of the offence.
5. The court held that the confessional statement was corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of PW1, and that either evidence alone was sufficient to ground conviction.
6. The court held that the alleged contradiction in the evidence of PW4 regarding the type of gun (dane gun versus pistol) was not material, as the core fact that a gun/firearm was used was established.
7. The court held that retraction of a confessional statement during trial is of no moment if the court is satisfied as to the truth of the confession and where there are other facts pointing to the guilt of the accused.
8. The court held that the charge of conspiracy was fully established since the Appellant confessed to committing the offence in company with his co-accused.
9. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on June 25, 2020, affirming the trial court’s sentence of death by hanging was affirmed.
10. The appeal was found to be bereft of merit and was dismissed by all five Justices of the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING AND SCOPE:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion, which is consistent with a high degree of probability……… One thing that is certain is that where all the essential ingredients of the offence charged have been proved or established by the prosecution. The charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched beyond limit.”

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – PROOF TO MORAL CERTAINTY:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof to moral certainty, such proof as satisfies the judgment and conscience of a judge as a reasonable man, and applying his reasons to the evidence before him that the crime charged has been committed by the defendant and so satisfies him as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible.”

INGREDIENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – THREE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:

“It is trite law that for the prosecution to achieve success in proof of the offence of armed robbery, the following essential ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; (a) That there was a robbery incident or series of robberies (b) That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery (c) That the accused was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.”

— Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSION – WHEN CONFESSION ALONE IS SUFFICIENT:

“The law is well settled on endless judicial authorities that an accused person may be convicted solely based on his confessional statement if the confession is positive, direct, unequivocal and voluntarily made. See YESUFU V. STATE (1976) 6 SC 167 at 173, NWACHUKWU V. STATE (2003) NWLR (Pt. 123) 312 and KAMILA V. STATE (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1621) 252. There can be no better proof of the commission of a crime than the words of the accused, voluntarily stating how the offence was committed and the role he played.” — Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

DEFINITION OF CONFESSION:

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a criminal offence stating or suggesting that he committed the crime.” — Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

TESTING THE TRUTH OF CONFESSION – SIX CRITICAL QUESTIONS:

“Notwithstanding the positive, direct and unequivocal confession, it is the usual practice of the Courts to consider some other ascertained facts outside the confessional statement, suggesting that the confession is likely to be true. The questions the Courts would always ask are: I. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true II. Is it corroborated? III. Are the relevant statements made in it true as far as they can be tasted? IV. Was the accused person one who had the opportunity of committing the crime? V. Is the confession possible VI. Is it consistent with other facts, which have been ascertained and proved?”

MATERIAL VERSUS IMMATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS:

“The settled position of the law on the issue of contradictions in the evidence of witnesses that testify in Court is well-settled, this is on a chain of endless authorities, it is not every minor contradiction in the evidence of witnesses that matters or has the effect of rendering the evidence unbelievable. For a trial Court to disbelieve a witness, the contradiction in his evidence must be on a material point. The contradiction must be substantial as to render the evidence of the witness doubtful.”

WITNESSES NARRATING SAME EVENT FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES:

“Although witnesses see and watch the same event, they may narrate it from different angles, in their individual peculiar focus, perspective or slant. This does not — mean that the event that they are narrating did not take place. It only means most of the time that the event took place, but what led to the event was given different interpretations, arising from the senses of sight and mind dictated by their impressions and idiosyncrasies. That is why the law says that contradictions, which are not material or substantial, will go to no issue. The main interest of the Court is that the witnesses are in union or unison as to the happening of the event but gave different versions in respect of the peripheral surrounding the event.”

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – ACTING IN CONCERT:

“Furthermore, the Appellant in this appeal having confessed that he committed the offence in the company of and with the cooperation of his co-accused as stated by PW1, the charge for conspiracy was fully established. Having acted in concert with another to do an illegal act makes no difference who did what in the commission of the crime.” — Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT:

“At the trial, the Appellant made vain and futile efforts to retract his confessional statement in the face of obvious and glaring facts as established by the evidence before the trial Court. It is the law that retraction of confessional statement by an accused person in his oral testimony in Court during trial is of no moment. The most important thing is that the Court must be satisfied as to the truth of the confession and can therefore rely on it alone to ground conviction, moreso where there are other facts pointing to the guilt of the Appellant.” — Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL – AFFIRMATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE:

“Finally, I am satisfied that the Appellant was properly connected to the crime with which he was charged, convicted, and sentenced. The sole issue crafted for determination is therefore resolved against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent. Appellant therefore has nothing useful to urge this Court, the appeal is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed by me. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 25th day of June, 2020, in Appeal No. CA/IB/3312/2017 affirming the judgment of the trial Court imposing sentence of death by hanging on the Appellant is further affirmed by me.”Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – DIFFICULTY IN OVERTURNING:

“The Respondent led the victim of the armed robbery in evidence and he presented an unchallenged eye witness account of the entire robbery incident and the principal role played by the Appellant, in the company of his co-accused person, in the armed robbery. The Respondent also tendered the confessional statements made of the Appellant at two different Police Stations and in which he vividly detailed the events prior to the armed robbery, during the armed robbery and after the armed robbery and the active part he played in these events. The Appellant denied the contents of the statement when they were tendered in the course of trial. However, the contents of the confessional statement were corroborated in all material particulars by the eye witness evidence of the victim of the crime. In the face of these facts, it was an uphill task for the Appellant to convince this Court to tamper with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts, and the Appellant, in fact, did not give this Court any cause to do so.“Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU,
J.S.C.

PROSECUTION’S BURDEN – HEAVY BUT ACHIEVABLE:

“The burden placed on the prosecution in every criminal trial is heavy; it must establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Throughout the trial process it must remain clear that the prosecution retains the burden of proving its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.” — Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap R.11
• Evidence Act 2011 (particularly Section 28 on definition of confession)
• Evidence Act 2022 (Section 135 on burden of proof in criminal cases)
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (regarding presumption of innocence)

OTHER CITATIONS

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT