LT. CDR M. C. ABUBAKAR V. THE NIGERIAN NAVY
May 7, 2026AYOOLA ADEKUNLE V THE STATE
May 7, 2026SOLOMON IBORO SANDY V. THE STATE
Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 51916 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 4, 2025
Suit Number: SC.1008/2017
CORAM
Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
SOLOMON IBORO SANDY
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER, EVIDENCE, FAIR HEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ALIBI, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENT, BURDEN OF PROOF, APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Solomon Iboro Sandy, was charged before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, holden at Uyo, with the murder of one Godwin George Udofia, contrary to Section 326(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. 2 Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria 2000. The alleged offence was committed on June 1, 2014, at Ikot Oku-Ubo Village in Uyo Local Government Area.
The prosecution’s case, led by PW1 (Iniobong George Udofia, the brother of the deceased), was that on the evening of June 1, 2014, the deceased had a body clash with one Ndifreke Iboro Sandy (the brother of the Appellant) at a supermarket in Ikot Oku-Ubo Village. This body clash led to an argument and quarrel. PW1, who was present, tried to settle the conflict and persuaded them to go their separate ways. As they were leaving, Ndifreke made a phone call. Within three minutes, the Appellant and one Idara Sandy arrived at the scene. The Appellant concealed an object he was holding, then hit the deceased on the head with an axe. The deceased shouted “Jesus!” while Ndifreke and Idara used angle iron bars to beat him. The Appellant hit the deceased with the axe a second time, and the deceased fell down. PW1 ran into a nearby bush for safety. While in the bush, he heard the deceased pleading with the Appellant and his brothers to spare him as he was their in-law, but they continued to beat him.
The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered three exhibits: Exhibit “A” (the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement to the Police dated August 1, 2014), Exhibits “B” – “B3” (Post-Mortem Examination Form with Medical Report), and Exhibit “C” (Police Investigation Report dated August 25, 2014). PW4, Inspector Anthony Sampson, was the investigating police officer who obtained the Appellant’s statement.
The Appellant testified in his defense as DW1, claiming he was not at the scene of the crime. He raised the defense of alibi, stating that on June 1, 2014, he received a call from a female friend who told him it was her birthday and asked him to take her out. He claimed he took her to Edyson Guest House (also called Edyson Garden Hotel), Babangida Avenue, Uyo, where he stayed with her until the following morning, June 2, 2014. The Appellant called three additional witnesses: DW2, DW3 (Uduak Peter Brownson/Eno-Eno, his girlfriend), and DW4 (Aniete Inyang, hotel staff). Exhibit “D” (Cash Receipt No. 196 dated June 1, 2014, issued by Eddyson Garden Hotel) was tendered through DW4.
However, there were significant inconsistencies in the defense evidence. In his extra-judicial statement (Exhibit A), the Appellant claimed he was at “Sam Law Hotel” along IBB Avenue with his girlfriend for her birthday party. During trial, he changed this to “Edyson Garden Hotel.” The police investigated both claims: at Sam Law Hotel, they found no record of the Appellant and no party was held there; at Edyson Garden Hotel, while the Appellant was found to have lodged there from 8:00 PM or 9:00 PM, no party was held. More critically, the incident occurred around 7:00 PM (as evidenced by PW3 finding the deceased wounded around that time), but the Appellant’s alibi only accounted for his whereabouts from 8:00 PM onwards.
The trial Court, per Hon. Justice Okon A. Okon, delivered judgment on January 27, 2016, rejecting the defense of alibi as contrived and finding that the prosecution proved the offense of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Appeal No: CA/C/49C/2016), which dismissed the appeal on July 12, 2017. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
2. The Supreme Court held that there was no breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing regarding the adoption of Exhibit “A” (his extra-judicial statement). The Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial, and his counsel did not object to the admissibility of the statement when it was tendered. The Appellant voluntarily adopted the statement as part of his defense.
3. The Court held that the defense of alibi failed because: (a) the Appellant’s alibi was investigated and found to be false; (b) there were material inconsistencies between his extra-judicial statement and his oral testimony; (c) the alibi did not account for the Appellant’s whereabouts at the time the offense was committed (around 7:00 PM), only from 8:00 PM onwards; and (d) the eyewitness testimony of PW1 conclusively fixed the Appellant at the scene of the crime.
4. The Court held that the prosecution proved the offense of murder beyond reasonable doubt through the credible eyewitness testimony of PW1, which was corroborated by other evidence including the post-mortem report.
5. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal were affirmed as they were not shown to be perverse or to have occasioned any miscarriage of justice.
6. The judgment of the Court of Appeal dated July 12, 2017, was affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was breached when he adopted Exhibit “A” without same being interpreted to him?
2. Whether the defense of alibi by the Appellant ought to have been sustained if the evidence of DW3 and DW4 were not discountenanced?
3. Whether prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of the nature of the evidence (documentary and oral) adduced at the trial for the offense of murder which carries death sentence at conviction?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – STANDARD REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL CASES
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow or every shadow of doubt – it means such proof carrying a high degree of probability that the defendant committed the offence.– Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JSC
METHODS OF PROVING COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE
It is also trite that the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of an offence by any of the following means or ways: 1. by the evidence of an eyewitness or eyewitnesses; 2. by the confession of the accused defendant; or 3. by circumstantial evidence. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JSC
DEFENSE OF ALIBI – EFFECT OF SUPERIOR EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE
The law is that the defence of alibi will physically and logically crumble once there is superior, positive and credible evidence fixing the Appellant to the scene of crime. – Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC
DEFENSE OF ALIBI – REQUIREMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR WHEREABOUTS AT TIME OF OFFENSE
The basis of the defence of alibi is the physical impossibility of a person being at more than one place at a time. For this reason, the alibi raised must account for the accused person’s whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence and eliminate the possibility of the Appellant being present at the scene of the crime at the time when the offence was committed. – Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC
INVESTIGATION OF ALIBI – DUTY OF POLICE
Defense of alibi must be raised timeously and whenever it is raised, it becomes incumbent upon the Appellant to adequately furnish detailed information of his whereabouts at the time the offence charged was committed. It is only when the Appellant has satisfactorily provided such vital information of his whereabouts, that the police will investigate in order to verify whether he was actually at the place he alleged he was at the time of the commission of the offence, Where he fails to give or provides such detailed information, the police have no obligation to investigate the claim. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – TIMING
Objection to any piece of evidence or to the admissibility of an extra-judicial must be raised at the point of tendering it in evidence by the prosecution. Where the Defendant contends that he did not make the statement voluntarily, a trial within trial would be conducted to determine its admissibility. Where the Defendant states that he did not make the statement at all, it would be admitted in evidence and considered alongside other evidence tendered by the Prosecution to determine the weight to be attached to it. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT OBJECTION – EFFECT
Where an Appellant stands by and allows an exhibit to smoothly undergo the process of becoming evidence without any protest, then it becomes certain that such Appellant is comfortable with the evidence without any protest and see no reason why he should challenge its admission. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – DUTY OF COURT
It is settled law that all that a Court is bound to do is to afford the parties a fair and level playing field to conduct their case and this was done by the trial Court. The duty of Court does not extend to lending a helping hand to the parties or assisting them in conducting their case. – Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC
ELEMENTS OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS TO BE PROVED
The law is trite that to prove a charge of murder, there are three elements that must be present: that the deceased died; that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused person and that the act of the deceased was intentional with probable consequence of death or bodily harm. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
SUFFICIENCY OF SINGLE WITNESS TESTIMONY
It is trite that the Court can convict on the evidence of a single witness once such evidence is cogent and credible and that a party does not need to call a host of witnesses to prove his case if there is a single but vital witness whose evidence will prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.– Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
INTENTION IN MURDER – PRESUMPTION FROM CONDUCT
The fact that the Appellant hit the head of the deceased with an axe twice reveals that there was intention to either kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This type of murder is such that the law attaches the intention on the simple principle that any sane man is presumed by law to intend the natural and probable consequences of his action. – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC
INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
The law is that this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts where such findings of facts have not been shown to be erroneous, perverse and/or to have occasioned any miscarriage of justice. – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JSC
EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE – RANKING IN EVIDENTIAL HIERARCHY
It is gleanable from the record, the bedrock of the appeal, that the evidence of PW1 was a classic exemplification of that of an eye witness. Evidence of an eye witness is one of the legally-accepted modis of proof of a crime. In the colony of evidence, it ranks second in the evidential pyramid in terms of cogency. It concedes a prime position to a confession. – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. 2 Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria 2000
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
OTHER CITATIONS
