Legalpedia Citation: (2014-02) Legalpedia (SC) 14801
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 28, 2014
Suit Number: SC.196/2011
CORAM
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS
PARTIES
SGT. MONDAY YAKUBU APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant along with four others were charged at the trial court on three counts of criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide and armed robbery punishable under Section 97 (1), 221 (a) and 298 (b) of the Penal Code. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of criminal conspiracy only; convicted and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment without an option of fine. He was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed and the decision of the trial court affirmed. Still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned Justices of the court below were right to hold that the prosecution had proved a case of criminal conspiracy against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the learned Justices of the court below were right in holding that the failure of the learned trial Judge to fully comply with the provisions of Sections 191 and 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not rendered the entire trial a nullity?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSPIRACY-WHETHER CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE EVIDENCE OR FACTS OF THE CASE
“It is trite that the Court can infer conspiracy from the evidence or facts of the case. “PER OKORO, JSC
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY-NATURE OF PROOF REQUIRED
On the nature of proof required to establish criminal conspiracy, Achike, JSC had this to say in Oduneye Vs The State (2001) 1 SC (Part I) 1 @
“A conviction for conspiracy is not without its inherent difficulties. …a successful conviction for conspiracy is one of those offences predicated on circumstantial-evidence which is “evidence not of the fact in issue but of other facts from which the fact in issue can be inferred…. Evidence in this connection must be of such quality that irresistibly compels the court to make an inference as to the guilt of the accused.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-WHAT IT ENTAILS
“By section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011, in all criminal prosecutions, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This however does not mean prove beyond any shadow of doubt but the ingredients of the offence charged must be proved as required by Law to the satisfaction of the Court.” PER OKORO, JSC
CONSPIRACY-WHETHER CAN BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE
“It is well settled that conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence. In Obiakor Vs The State (2002) 6 SC (Part in 33 @ 39 – 40 this court held, per Kalgo, JSC held:
“Conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The actual agreement alone constitutes the offence and it is not necessary to prove that the act has in fact been committed. Because of the nature of the offence of conspiracy, it is rarely or seldom proved bv direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
CONSPIRACY-MEANING AND SCOPE OF
“Conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. There must be two or more persons as one person cannot conspire with himself. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to ground a conviction for conspiracy. It has to be noted that for the offence of conspiracy to be in existence, there must be consent of two or more persons. There must be an agreement which is an advancement of an intention conceived in the mind of each person secretly. The secret intention must have been translated into an overt act or omission or mutual consultation or agreement.” PER OKORO, JSC
CONSPIRACY-PROOF OF
“To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must prove the following:
(i) An agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means.
(ii) Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement.
Specifically that each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE-WHETHER PRECLUDES THE ACCUSED FROM LEADING EVIDENCE OF FACTS WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE
“Although the prosecution has the burden of establishing its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused has no duty to prove his innocence, he nonetheless has a duty to adduce evidence in support of facts that are strictly within his knowledge”. PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-WHEN CAN GROUND CONVICTION
“In order for the circumstantial evidence to lead to a conviction it must be so cogent and unequivocal as to point to no other direction but the guilt of the accused. The quality of the evidence must be such as to leave no reasonable grounds for speculation that some other person other than the accused committed the offence.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
CASES CITED
Akinmoju V The State (2000) 6 NWLR (662) 608 @ 626Dabo & Anor. Vs The State (1977) 5 SC 22;Kaza Vs The State (2008) 1 – 2 SC 151 @ 164 – 165;Obiakor V The State (2002) 6 SC (Pt. 33 @ 39- 40Onyenye Vs The State (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt.643) 1810Patrick Njovens Vs The State (1973) 5 SC 17;State V Aibangbee (1988)7SC (PT 1) 96.Tanko V The State (2008)16 NWLR (Pt 1114) 597Usufu v State (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt.1020) 94
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Penal Code