CORAM

---

Adamu Jauro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

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

Mohammed Baba Idris -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

SUNDAY ONUORAH

APPELLANTS 

---

THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL, EVIDENCE, CONFESSION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery at the High Court of Lagos State. The prosecution called three witnesses: PW1 (Esther Osimen, the victim), PW2 (Shedrack Monday), and PW3 (ASP Emmanuel Onwuemeli). The victim boarded a taxi in which the Appellant was present, and during the journey, she was robbed of her belongings after the taxi deviated from its route. Subsequently, the taxi was involved in an accident and taken to the police station. The victim’s phone, which had fallen in the taxi during the robbery, rang while at the police station, leading to the discovery of the crime. The Appellant made a confessional statement but later retracted it during trial. The trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment on each count. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, leading to this further appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

3. The Court upheld the 21-year imprisonment sentence.

4. The Appellant’s confessional statement was properly relied upon despite its retraction.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the trial Court’s judgment which relied on the confessional statement of the Appellant’s co-accused without the Appellant’s adoption.?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in upholding the conviction despite alleged contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and absence of conspiracy evidence.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY AND CONVICTION

---

 “It will not be in the interest of the society to allow a man who had confessed to his crime to walk out of Court a freeman simply because he has a change of mind. The whole trial will be a mockery… It would be dangerous to apply the principle of extra judicial confession of the accused person as it would open a floodgate of retracting of all statements made by accused persons before the police officers.” – Per Onu, JSC

 

---

CONVICTION ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – REQUIREMENT OF CORROBORATION

---

“In Durugo v The State (supra) at page 541 paragraphs C-D, this Court held that the secrecy with which criminals perpetrate their crime has tended to deprive the prosecution, in some cases, of an eye-witness. Hence, confession alone even without corroboration can support a conviction so long as the Court is satisfied of its truth.” – Per Okoro, JSC

 

---

TIMING OF OBJECTION TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – PROPER STAGE FOR CHALLENGE

---

“As can be seen above, there was no objection to the admissibility of the Confessional Statement when it was sought to be tendered in evidence… so to raise the two issues at defence stage of the case was an afterthought vide OKOSI & Anor v STATE (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 100) 642.” – Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA

 

---

OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

---

“When a counsel stands by and allows exhibits to sail smoothly through to become evidence without an eyelid, then it becomes obvious that counsel is comfortable with the evidence and saw no reason why he should challenge its admission.” – Per Justice of the Supreme Court

 

---

VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – PRESUMPTION OF VOLUNTARINESS

---

“The law is that where an accused defendant seeks to contend the making of a confessional statement, the objection must be taken at the time of the tendering of the statement, and not later in the oral evidence of the accused defendant in his defence.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

EVALUATION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TEST FOR TRUTH AND RELIABILITY

---

“I am satisfied that the prosecution proved the count beyond reasonable doubt against the defendants. I say this despite the defendants’ rather bleated attempt during trial denying making the said confession in their statement or voluntarily making same and denial which I must say I find unbeliever taking into consideration defendants’ shifty demeanor.” – Per Trial Judge

 

---

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – EFFECT ON CONVICTION

---

 “The contradictions complained of by the Appellant in the instant appeal are not so material as it was not in dispute that a call was made to the victim’s phone.” – Per Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPROACH OF SUPREME COURT

---

“This Court has reiterated in a plethora of decided cases that it does not make it a habit of disturbing the concurrent findings of lower Courts except in exceptional circumstances.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY – PROOF REQUIRED

---

“The law is well settled that in establishing an offence of robbery, the elements which the prosecution must prove to secure conviction are that (i) there was indeed a robbery or series of robbery; (ii) that the robbery was carried with the threat of or use of violence on the victim; (iii) that items of the victim which were capable in law of being stolen were stolen and (iv) that the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

CORROBORATION – MEANING AND REQUIREMENT

---

CORROBORATION – MEANING AND REQUIREMENT

 

---

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENTPRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT

---

 “By Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, a judgment appealed against enjoys presumption of regularity which is rebuttable. Once the appellant fails to satisfactorily establish the error in the judgment appealed against, the respondent is entitled to a judgment affirming the judgment.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

IMPEACHMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – REQUIREMENTS

---

“The law as laid down by this Court is that an accused defendant who desires to impeach his extra-judicial statement is duty bound to establish that his earlier confessional statement cannot be true by showing any of the following (i) that he did not in fact make any such statement as presented; or (ii) that he was not correctly recorded; or (iii) that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or (iv) that he was induced to make the statement.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – WHEN REQUIRED

---

 “Where the accused defendant contends involuntariness in the making of the statement, the trial Court must conduct a trial within trial at that stage to determine the issue of voluntariness and would only admit the statement into evidence where it finds that it was voluntarily made.” – Per Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act, 2011

2. Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2011 of Lagos State

3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT