AKEEM AGBOOLA V THE STATE

CORAM

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

AKEEM AGBOOLA APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as plaintiff was charged at the trial court for the offence of armed robbery and was sentenced to death at the trial court. Aggrieved by the decision he appealed to the court below and the lower court affirmed the conviction of the appellant, thus he appealed to the Apex court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1.    Whether having resolved issue No. 2 in favour of the appellant, the court below was right in not setting aside the conviction of the appellant. (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)?

2.     Whether the court below was right in its conclusion that the issue of identification of the appellant by the victim (PWI) is adequate proof by the prosecution that established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFESSION -RETRACTION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION-WHETHER CAN GROUND A FINDING OF GUILT

“Where an extra judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt regardless of the fact that the maker retracted it altogether at the trial”. PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE- NEED TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“Generally, identification evidence is evidence tending to show that the person charged with an offence is the same as the person who was seen committing the offence. Therefore, whenever the trial court is confronted with identification evidence, it is expected to ensure and be satisfied that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused before the court was the person who actually committed the offence with which he is charged.” PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

DEFENCES-ALIBI -WHEN RAISED BY AN ACCUSED PERSON-ONUS ON PROSECUTION TO INVESTIGATE AND DISPROVE

“The law is that if an accused person raises unequivocally the issue of alibi, that he was somewhere else other than the locus delicti time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged and gives some facts and circumstances of his where about, the prosecution is duty bound to investigate the alibi set up, to verify its truthfulness or otherwise”. PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED-STATEMENT MADE UNDER CAUTION -HOW TREATED

“It is the law that once an accused person makes a statement under caution, saying or admitting the charge or creating the impression that he committed the offence charged the statement becomes confessional.”-PER OLU ARIWOOLA. JSC

CRIMINAL TRIAL-GUILT OF ACCUSED-HOW ESTABLISHED

“It is trite law that in criminal trials, the guilt of the accused person for the commission of an offence could be established by any or all of the following:
(a) The confessional statement of the accused;
(b) Circumstantial evidence;
(c) Evidence of an eye witness”. PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

OFFENCES-ARMED ROBBERY- INGREDIENT OF

“Therefore, for the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery, the following are required to be proved:
(a) That there was in fact a robbery
(b) That the robbery was an armed robbery
(c) That the accused person was the armed robber”. –PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

DEFENCES-ALIBI – ONUS ON ACCUSED RAISING-HOW DISCHARGED

“However, even though no burden is placed on the accused person to prove his alibi but he is not expected to merely state that he was not at the scene of the crime without more. He is duty bound to give the lead and particulars of his where about which will lead the prosecution in their investigation of the alibi.” PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

IDENTIFICATION PARADE-WHEN NECESSARY

“Ordinarily, identification parade is said not to be a sine qua non for identification in all cases where there have been a fleeting encounter with the victim of a crime, if there is yet other pieces of evidence leading conclusively to the identity of the perpetrator of the offence. An identification parade would become necessary only in the following situations of visual identification:
(a) Where the victim did not know the accused person before and his first acquaintance with him is during the commission of the offence;
(b) Where the victim was confronted by the offender for a very short time; and
(c) Where the victim, due to time and circumstances, might not have had the full opportunity of observing the features of the accused“.-PER OLU ARIWOOLA. JSC

CONFESSION- VOLUNTARY CONFESSION -WHETHER CAN SOLELY GROUND CONVICTION

“The law is trite on the point that a man may be convicted on his own confession alone and there is no law against it. The position of the law is that if a suspect makes a free and voluntary confession in his extra judicial statement to the police, which confession is direct and positive and the court is satisfied with its truth, such confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground and support conviction without corroboration.” PER OLU ARIWOOLA JSC

CASES CITED

Patrick Ikemson Vs State (1989) 1 CLRN 1.Yanor vs. State (1965) 1 All NLR 193;Ozulonye Vs. State (1981) NCR 38 at 50.Markudi Aliyu Vs. State (2007) All FWLR (pt 388) 1123 at 1141.Asimiyu Alarape & Ors. Vs. The State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt 705) 79, (2001) 2 SC 114; (2001) LPELR 412 (SC),Qzana Ubierho Vs. The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 919) 644; (2005) 2 SC (pt 1) 18, (2005) LPELR 3283 (SC)Bozin Vs State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 467; Alabi Vs State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 551; R Vs Turnbul (1976)3 AllER 549 or (1977) QB 224 at 228-231Olayinka Vs State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561; (2007) 8 SCM 193Akpan Vs. State (2000) 12 NWLR (pt 682) 607Kareem Vs. FRN (2002) 8 NWLR (pt 770) 664Egbogbonome vs. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt 306) 383Osetola vs. State (2012) 17 NWLR (pt 1329) 251 at 278.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT