ABDULRAHMAN MOHAMMED V. THE STATE

CORAM

Muhammed lawal shuaibu JCA

Abdullahi muhammad liman JCA

Victoria toochukwu nwoye JCA

PARTIES

ABDULRAHMAN MOHAMMED

APPELLANTS 

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the appeal by Abdulrahman Mohammed against the judgment of the Sokoto State High Court delivered on 23rd May, 2023. The High Court had convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to 2 years imprisonment under Section 60 and death under Section 191(b) of the Penal Code of Sokoto State, 2019.

The Appellant was alleged to have conspired with others, namely Sufyanu Isah, Hashimu Ibrahim, Usama Muhammed Abun Dadi, and others at large, to engage in a hostile fight with a rival group of traditional hunters (Yantauri). In furtherance of their agreement, they blocked a road near a bridge along University Road, attacked the victims by throwing stones, beating them with sticks, and inflicting injuries with cutlasses. The Appellant was specifically identified as the first person to beat the deceased, Bello Abubakar, with a stick before others joined in. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his forehead, right leg, and both sides of his back, which ultimately caused his death.

The Appellant denied these allegations and raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was elsewhere at the time of the incident. Despite this defense, the trial Court relied on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW5) who identified the Appellant at the scene and described his role in the attack, as well as confessional statements from co-defendants.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 19th July, 2023, which was later amended with leave of Court on 26th September, 2024.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as the testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4 convincingly fixed the Appellant at the scene of the crime, thereby defeating his defense of alibi.

3.The Court held that the admission of Exhibits C, C1, D, D1, E, and E1 (confessional statements of co-defendants) was proper, and in any case, did not prejudice the Appellant’s case as there was sufficient evidence outside these exhibits to ground his conviction.

4.The Court found that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were not material to the main issues in contention and therefore did not create reasonable doubt that would warrant resolving in favor of the Appellant.

5.The judgment of the lower Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant for conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death was affirmed.

ISSUES

1.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering the evidence provided by the Appellant and his witnesses that he was not present at the scene of the crime?

2.Whether the admission of Exhibits C, C1, D, D1, E and E1 by the trial Court was appropriate given that they were not tendered through the officer who recorded and translated these statements?

3.Whether the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 before the trial Court, create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case that should be resolved in favour of the Appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – DUTY OF PROSECUTION TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“It is also settled that the standard of proof where commission of crime is in issue, is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not however means proof of mathematical certainty. It does not also mean proof beyond all possible doubt. A charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt when the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence adduced is compelling and reliable to establish the guilt of the accused person. Therefore, there must be a high degree of probability that the accused person committed the offence. The doubt must be of a reasonable man.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – QUALITY OVER QUANTITY OF WITNESSES:

“In ISAH V. STATE (2017) LPELR – 43472 (SC), it was held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify. The Court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness, so long as the charge is not one that needs corroboration.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY – WHAT PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

“For the prosecution to establish that there was conspiracy to commit an offence, it must prove the following: (a). That there was agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which though not illegal by illegal means. (b). Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence, that some acts besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement. (c). That each of the accused persons individually participate in the conspiracy.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ELEMENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH – WHAT PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

“The law is equally settled that in a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, the three elements that the prosecution must prove or establish are: (a). That a particular human being had died in unlawful or unnatural circumstances. (b). That the accused person caused the unlawful death of the deceased, and (c). That the accused person had the mens rea, the criminal intent, for the unlawful killing.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

DEFENSE OF ALIBI – NATURE AND PURPOSE:

“The defence of alibi is no doubt based on the physical impossibility of an accused person being guilty by placing him in another location at the relevant time. In other words, it is a fact or state of having been elsewhere.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID ALIBI – SPECIFICITY AND PRECISION:

“It was held in plethora of cases that once the defence of alibi is properly raised during the investigations, it is the duty of the police to investigate it and for the prosecution to disprove it. Nonetheless, for the defence of alibi to be worthy of investigation; it must be precise and specific in terms of place where the accused person was and the person or persons he was with and possibly what he was doing there at the material time.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ALIBI – EFFECT OF FIXING ACCUSED AT SCENE OF CRIME:

Where the presence of an accused person is fixed at the scene of the crime, the defence of alibi no matter how beautifully put up is defeated and needs no investigation.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS THROUGH THIRD PARTIES – WHEN PERMISSIBLE:

“By virtue of Section 83 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, if having regards to all circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, admit a statement in evidence notwithstanding that the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERPRETED STATEMENTS – REQUIREMENT FOR INTERPRETER’S TESTIMONY:

“However, if the statement of the accused person is made in Language other than English Language and it is interpreted into English by an interpreter to the recorder, the interpreter must be called to give evidence on the point at the trial of the accused person otherwise the contents of the statement will be inadmissible.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – MATERIAL VS. IMMATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS:

“A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what the other evidence has stated and not when there is a minor discrepancy between them. Thus, two pieces of evidence contradicts another when they are themselves inconsistent. However, a discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of or contains a little more than what the other evidence says or contain some minor differences in details.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF CONTRADICTIONS ON PROSECUTION’S CASE – WHEN FATAL:

The principle laid down in Superior Court decisions is that where there contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are on a material fact and the contradictions are not explained by the prosecution through any of its witnesses, the trial Court should not speculate on or proffer the explanation for such contradictions and thereby pick and choose from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that which it will believe.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS – WHAT CONSTITUTES:

MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS – WHAT CONSTITUTES:
“What amounts to material contradictions that can affect the case of the prosecution depends on the circumstances of each case. However, they are contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses, for the prosecution which are substantial and fundamental to the main issue before the Court and necessarily create some doubts in the mind of the trial Court that an accused is entitled to the benefit therefrom.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO APPELLATE COURT:

“The law is settled that where an issue of wrongful admission or rejection of evidence is raised, there are three options open to the appellate Court by virtue of the stipulations of Section 251 of the Evidence Act. These options are: the evidence may be left intact, regarding it as properly admitted or rejected; the Court may expunge the evidence wrongly admitted or in case of evidence wrongly rejected or excluded, order a retrial directing its admission.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

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

2.Evidence Act, 2011

3.Penal Code of Sokoto State, 2019

4 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT