CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

SANUSI IBRAHIM APPELLANTS

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Prosecution’s case at the Federal High Court was that on 21st March, 2012, the operatives of the NDLEA Adamawa State Command, Yola went for an operation in Loko village Song Local Government of Adamawa State, to arrest the Appellant and other illicit drug dealers in narcotic drugs after surveillance and intelligence gathering. That the Appellant and others on getting wind of the operation, mobilized youths for a mob action to resist arrest. The mob attacked the operatives with dangerous weapons that resulted in the death of two operatives of NDLEA, and that it was only with the combined efforts of the military that the mob was dispersed and the Appellant (the 6th Defendant) and other Defendants were arrested. While the Appellant in his defence stated that on the date of the incidence even though he was in Loko and heard of the fight in the town, he was not at the scene of the incident but at home sick with his mother when some persons ran into their house being chased by soldiers and as a result of this that he was arrested by the soldiers inside the house while his mother protested that he was sick. He was put into the NDLEA vehicle and brought to Yola, where the officers of NDLEA beat him up but he did not make any formal statement to the officers of the NDLEA. At the end of trial, the court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to a prison term of twenty years for conspiracy and another term of twenty years for obstructing the NDLEA officers from carrying out their lawful duties as a result of which two officers lost their lives and two others seriously injured; both sentences are to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant has appealed to this Court contending that the trial court evaluated and considered only the Respondent’s evidence and reached its conclusion by convicting and sentencing the Appellant to twenty years imprisonment without considering the evidence adduced by the Appellant, hence the said judgment should be set aside.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Having regard to the evidence adduced by the Appellant and the entire circumstances and the approach adopted by the trial court in this case, in delivering the Judgment, whether the trial court was right in convicting and sentencing the Appellant as charged. ?Whether the Respondent proved the case of conspiracy and obstruction of officer of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency in carrying out their duty beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant as charged, as required by law to ground the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. (Distilled from grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal)

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY AND HOW IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED

---

“On the second issue Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an intention to achieve the agreement’s objective. See Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of doing things towards a common end where there is no direct evidence in support of an agreement between or among the accused persons. The conspirators need not know themselves and may not have agreed to commit the offence of conspiracy at the same time. Courts tackle the offence of conspiracy as a matter of inference to be deduced from certain acts or inactions of the parties concerned. The offence of conspiracy is established once it is shown in evidence that the criminal design alleged is common to all the accused persons. See Adekoya V. State (2017) 1 SCNJ 62 at 83,Oduneye V. State (2001) 13 WRN 88, Marlow V State (1997) CLR 897 CA, Kayode V. State(2016) LPELR-40028 SC and Alufohai V. State (2014) LPELR-24215 SC”. –

---

GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“The guilt of an accused person can be proved by:
The confessional statement of the accused person or
Circumstantial evidence; or
Evidence of the witness of the crime. –

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TEST TO DETERMINE THE VERACITY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON’S RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“Although the Appellant has retracted his confessional statement the trial court was right in examining the retracted confessional statement in order to see if it is consistent with other evidence called by the prosecution in proof of the offences charged as shown at pages 561 – 562 of the Record. This is in conformity with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Okinlawo V State (2015) NWLR (Part 1489) 445 at 480 Paragraphs A – D when the Apex Court held that where the defendant retracts confessional statement attributed to him the court is expected to test its truthfulness and veracity by examining the said statement in the light of other credible available evidence by looking into whether:-
There is anything outside it to show that it is true
It is corroborated
Facts in it are true as can be tested
The accused person’s confession is possible
The confession is consistent with other facts as contained and proved at the trial. –

---

PENALTY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCE – WHETHER COURTS ARE AT LIBERTY TO IMPOSE A HEAVIER PENALTY FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENCE THAN THAT WHICH IS IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED

---

“By virtue of Section 36 (8) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) no penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence heavier than in force at the time the offence was committed. Iortim V State (1997) 2 NWLR (Part 490) 711”.

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Evidence Act, 2011|National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap. N30, Laws Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT