FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. MOHAMMED USMAN ALIAS YARO YARO & ANOR. Archives - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. MOHAMMED USMAN ALIAS YARO YARO & ANOR.

Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 17511

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 23, 2012

Suit Number: SC. 283/2011

CORAM



PARTIES


FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA APPELLANTS


MOHAMMED USMAN ALIAS YARO YARO & ANOR.

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondents were convicted by the trial Judge for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery itself. The respondents’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was successful and were acquitted and discharged. The appellant appealed


HELD


Appeal dismissed


ISSUES


1.Whether from the circumstances of this appeal the failure to call the interpreter of the statement of the accused persons (Now respondents in this appeal) at the trial, from Hausa to English and Vice versa by the appellant rendered the statements inadmissible and as such fatal to the case of the appellant.?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


HOW TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF A DOCUMENT OBTAINED BY THE HELP OF AN INTERPRETER


“When the purpose for tendering a statement is to establish the truth of its contents, and the statement was obtained with the help of an interpreter, both the interpreter and the person who recorded the statement must give evidence in court. The statement is hearsay and inadmissible if the interpreter does not testify in court.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC


WHAT IS HERESAY EVIDENCE


“A witness is expected to testify in court on oath on what he knows personally. If the witness testifies on what he heard some other person says his evidence is hearsay” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC


WHAT A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO ESTABLISH ARMED ROBBERY


“A charge under section 1 (2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act succeeds if the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons stole something capable of being stolen, and at the time of the stealing the accused person threatened to use violence or used violence immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing. The violence could be on either a person or on a property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC


CASES CITED


R. v. sakwakwa 1960 5 FSC p.12Nwaeze v. state 1996 2 NWLR pt.428 p.1?


STATUTES REFERRED TO


NONE?


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT