SULEIMAN JIBRIN VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

CORAM

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL

John Inyang Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JUSTICE, COURT OF APEAL

PARTIES

SULEIMAN JIBRIN

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, and fourteen other Herdsmen, were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Jos, on a three-count Charge of conspiracy, possession of firearms and acts of terrorism,.It was alleged that they intimidated citizens of Kadunu Village and environs in Mengu Local Government Areas of Plateau State while armed with dangerous weapons such as machetes, knives, bows and arrows, slings and axes. They were also accused of causing the death of several persons, serious injuries to several others, damage to public and private properties and natural resources.

At the trial, the Prosecution called five Witnesses and tendered fifty-seven Exhibits, including dane guns, bows and arrows, etc, and the Statements of the Appellant and other Accused Persons to the Police, as Exhibits A1-A14, wherein they had confessed to committing some of the said offences charged against them. The Prosecution’s case is that after a communal disturbance on 8/3/2010, the Accused Persons were arrested with assorted weapons by Soldiers, who later handed them over to the Police.

None of the Accused Persons, including the Appellant, testified in their defense but they called one witness, Mohammed Hassan, the leader of his community, called Hardo, Head of Fulani.DW1 testified that he was informed of an attack by Berom people and when they were surrounded by some people, who started burning their houses, he advised the Accused Persons to escape to a secure place. They met Soldiers while trying to escape who stopped them, shot and arrested them. He explained that they were herdsmen, and had the guns for the protection of their cattle, and that none of them used the guns.

The trial Court in its judgment found that the Prosecution has proved the 3-Count Charge against the 15 Accused Persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore convicted them jointly, severally and variously as charged. The Appellant, who was the fifth Accused Person, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment without an option of fine in Count I; twelve months’ imprisonment without option of fine in Court II; and ten year’s imprisonment without option of fine in Court III. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his Appeal.

Further aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant filed the instant appeal vide a Notice of Appeal containing two Grounds of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the decision of the trial Court.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPEAL- WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN ENTERTAIN APPEAL DIRECTLY FROM A TRIAL COURT

“To lay down some ground rules for determining this Appeal, I must point out that it is an elementary principle that this Court does not entertain appeals directly from the trial Court. Its role is limited to seeing whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeal that affirmed the Judgment of the trial Court is correct – Ibator V. Barakuro & Ors (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 475 SC.

See also Ibori V. Agbi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78 at 143, wherein this Court per Uwaifo, JSC, also observed as follows –

“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to usurp the function of the Court of Appeal either by hearing an appeal directly from a High Court or by hearing an appeal, which though lying before the Court of Appeal is yet to be decided by that Court because to do so will amount to a violation of m Constitution and will be null and void – – – The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear a Suit or an issue in a Suit fit for the High Court..” – Per AUGIE J. S. C.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN EVALUATE EVIDENCE

“The law is that it is only where and when a Court fails to evaluate evidence at all or properly that a Court of Appeal can intervene, and evaluate or re-evaluate such evidence. As a general rule, therefore, when the question of evaluation of evidence does not involve credibility of witnesses but against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of the evidence, the appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to do its own evaluation – see Fatai V. State (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1361) 1 at 21 SC.

So, when the question of evaluation of evidence involves credibility of witnesses, an appellate Court cannot do much since it is the trial Court that saw them, heard them and watched their demeanor that is in the vantage position to believe or disbelieve witnesses, and this can never be captured by an appellate Court, which only has the “cold printed record to contend with” – see Sogunro & Ors V. Yeku & Ors (2017) LPELR-41905(SC).”

– Per AUGIE J. S. C.

“Where an appellant complains about the non – evaluation or proper evaluation of evidence and does not involve the credibility of witnesses, the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate such evidence. See: Fatai v. State (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1361) 1.”– Per AKAAHS, J. S. C.“The law is that it is only where and when a Court fails to evaluate evidence at all or properly that a Court of Appeal can intervene, and evaluate or re-evaluate such evidence. As a general rule, therefore, when the question of evaluation of evidence does not involve credibility of witnesses but against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of the evidence, the appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to do its own evaluation – see Fatai V. State (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1361) 1 at 21 SC.

– Per AUGIE J. S. C.

CREDIBILTY- MEANING OF CREDIBILITY

“Credibility” is the quality of being convincing or believable, and since the trial Court has the liberty and privilege to believe one witness or disbelieve another witness, its findings predicated on the belief or the disbelief of witnesses, is almost sacrosanct, as this can only be questioned on appeal if it is against the drift of the evidence before a trial Court, when considered as a whole – see Adelumola V. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 683 SC.”– Per AUGIE J. S. C.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHETHER IT IS AN APPELLATE COURT’S FUNCTION TO RETRY A CRIMINAL CASE ON APPEAL

“This Court is also not in a position to intervene because as Ademola, CJN, observed in the case of Omisade V. The Queen (1964) NSCC (Vol. 3) 170, it is not the function of this Court to retry a criminal case on appeal. He further stated as follows –

If there was evidence before the trial Judge from which he could reasonably have come to the conclusion to which he did, the verdict must stand. The law was aptly put by Lord Tucker in the case of R. v. Aladesuru & Ors 39 C.A.R.184, which was an appeal from Nigeria. The learned Lord at p.185 of the Report said:

It will be observed that the language of the WACA Ordinance follows the English Criminal Act, 1907, under which it has long been established that the appeal is not by way of re-hearing as in civil appeals from a judge sitting alone, but is a limited appeal, which precludes the Court from reviewing the evidence and making its own valuation.”– Per AUGIE J. S. C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT- WHEN CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT MAYBE DISTURBED

“More importantly, the law says that where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the Court below, they will not be disturbed unless there is significant error apparent on the Record; that is, the findings are shown to be perverse, or some violation of the principles of law or procedure is shown thereon – see Ogoala V. The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 506 SC.

In other words, the two lower Courts are concurrent in their decisions and the onus lies on the Appellant to give very good reasons why this Court should interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the two lower Courts. “It is not a matter of course” – Muhammad V. State (1017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 386 SC.”– Per AUGIE J. S. C.

“The appeal is based on concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts. Where there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, this Court is not likely to disturb such findings unless they are perverse or have led to a miscarriage of justice, See: Mbang v. State (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 352) 48: Ajayi v. State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 589: Aliyu v. State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 403.”– Per AKAAHS, J. S. C.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“In Bolanle Abeke v The State (2007) LPELR – 31 (SC) at Page 17, Paragraphs D – F, this court, per Tobi, JSC explained what the term “proof beyond reasonable doubt” means. He stated as follows:-

“Reasonable doubt is doubt founded on reason which is rational; devoid of sentiment, speculation or parochialism. The doubt should be real and not imaginative. The evidential burden is satisfied if a reasonable man is of the view that from the totality of the evidence before the court, the accused person committed the offence. The proof is not beyond all shadow of doubt. There could be shadows of doubt here and there but when the pendulum tilts towards and in favour of the fact that the accused person committed the offence, a court of law is entitled to convict even though there are shadows of doubt here and there.”

See also Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372, Egharevba v The State (2016) LPELR – 40029 (SC).”– Per OKORO, J. S. C.