IKECHUKWU OKOH v. THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

IKECHUKWU OKOH APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused/Appellant and 7 others were charged with the offence of armed robbery, punishable under section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree 1984.  The charge was amended and the charge was withdrawn against the 5th Accused having died in prison. The charge was further amended  and 5 of the accused persons including the Appellant were charged with Conspiracy and Armed Robbery contrary to Section 5 (b) and 2 (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1984. The trial Court discharged and acquitted the 2nd and 5th Accused persons on a no-case-submission and found the Accused/Appellant and the remaining two Accused persons guilty and sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s decision, the Accused/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Irked by the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Accused/Appellant further appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the judgment of the trial court that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

OFFENCES-CONSPIRACY-WHETHER DIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARTIES IS NECESSARY TO PROOF CONSPIRACY

“It is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other accused person but the criminal design alleged must be common to all”. PER KEKERE-EKUN

CONFESSION-CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED-WHETHER SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION

“It is also trite law that the free and voluntary confessional statement of an accused alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided the court is satisfied that it was made in a free atmosphere and is direct, unequivocal and positively proved.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

OFFENCES-CONSPIRACY-ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF

“It is also well settled that the essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement and association to do an unlawful thing which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that thing be criminal or not and whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of its unlawfulness. Evidence of conspiracy is usually a matter of inference from surrounding facts and circumstances. The trial Court may infer conspiracy from the fact of doing things towards a common purpose”. PER KEKERE-EKUN

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES- NATURE OF-WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS FROM THE PROSECUTION

“The law is trite that the standard of proof required of the prosecution in a criminal case is a heavy one. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and does not shift to the accused person, except in a few limited circumstances, such as where an accused person raises a defence of insanity. PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

OFFENCES-ARMED ROBBERY-INGREDIENTS IN PROOF OF

“This Court in the case of Bozin Vs. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 set out the ingredients necessary to prove the offence of armed robbery. The prosecution must prove the following facts beyond reasonable doubt:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
2. That each robbery was an armed robbery;
3. That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robberies. PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC

OFFENCES-CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY-WHAT A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SUCCEED

“For the prosecution to succeed in the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, it must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:
a. That there was an agreement or confederacy between the accused and others to commit the offence.
b. That in furtherance of the agreement or confederacy, the accused took part in the commission of the robbery or series of robberies.
c. That the robbery or each of the robbery was an armed robber”. PER KEKERE-EKUN

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-QUESTIONS A COURT MUST ANSWER BEFORE IT CAN RELY ON A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON

“The questions the court must be able to answer before it can rely on a confessional statement to convict an accused were set in the case of R V Skyles (1913) 1 cr. App. Rep 233 are as follows:
(a) Is there anything outside to show that it is true?
(b) Is it corroborated?
(c) Are the factors stated in it true as far as can be tested?
(d) Was the accused the man who had the opportunity of committing the offence?
(e) Is the confession possible?
(f) Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved?” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

CONFESSION-MEANING OF-SECTION 28 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he commited that crime.” PER KEKERE- EKUN, JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BY AN ACCUSED -WHETHER RENDERS IT INADMISSIBLE

“The mere retraction of a confessional statement by an accused person will not render it inadmissible. It may only affect the weight to be attached to it where the accused denies making it at the earliest opportunity.” PER KEKERE- EKUN, JSC

BURDEN OF PROOF-WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON IS OBLIGATED TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE

“There is no obligation on an accused person to prove his innocence. In order to discharge the onus on it, the prosecution must establish all the ingredients of the offence charged.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

CASES CITED

Abdullahi vs  The State (2013) ALL FWLR (PT 699) 1118@ 1140 B-CAkinfe vs The State (1988) 3 NWLR (85)729 @ 746Akinmoju vs The State  (2000) 4 SCNJ 179Akpan vs The State (2001)15 NWLR (PT 737)Alonge  vs IGP (1959) 4 FSC 203; (1959)SCNLR 516Alor vs The state (1997) 4 NWLR (PT 501) 511Aje VS The State  (2006) 8 NWLR  (PT 982)345 @ 363 A-CClark vs The State (1986) 4 NWLR (PT.35) 381Egboghname vs The State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 306) 383Ekpenyong vs  State  (1991) 6 NWLR (200)200Erim vs The State (1994)5 NWLR (PT 346) 522Gbadamosi vs The State (1991)6NWLR (PT.196) 182Haruna vs The State (1972) All NLR 110  Ituke vs Queen (1961) 2 SCNLR 214Kanu vs The State (1952) 14 WACA 30Kaza vs The State (2008) 7 NWLR (PT 1085) 125 @ 175- 176 F-BNwachukwu vs The State (2007) 17 NWLR (PT 1062)31 @ 69 HNwangboma vs The State (1994) 2 NWLR (PT 327) 380Ogundiyan vs the state (1991) 3 NWLR (PT 181) 519 (1991) 4 SCNJ 44Ojegele vs The State (1988) 1NWLR (PT 71)Onyejekwe vs The State (1993) 3 NWLR (PT 230)444Oyakhire vs The State (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1001) 157Udofia vs The State (1984) 12 SC 139Usufu vs The State (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1020) 94 @ 113- 114 H-A The state vs Emine (1992) 7 NWLR (PT 256) 658:The state vs Jimoh Salawu (2011) 18 NWLR (PT.1279)883@ 920 – 921 G-A LPELRYongo vs C.O.P  8 NWLR (PT 257) 36(1992) 4 SCNJ 113

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The 1999 C0nstitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (AS AMENDED)Evidence Act 2011Evidence Act 2004Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree 1984Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act 1984

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT