LATEEF SADIKU VS THE STATE

CORAM

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BODE RHODES – VIVOUR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER – ODILI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

LATEEF SADIKU APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant and two others were arraigned before the Ogun State High Court, Ota Judicial Division on charges of Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to the Robbery’ and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 as amended by the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments .etc) Act, 1999 Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. On appeal, the death sentence was substituted for life imprisonment. The appellant was dissatisfied and has further appealed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the trial; court has jurisdiction to try the appellant on an information filed by the Attorney – General of Ogun State in respect of an offence under an Act of the National Assembly being an offence exclusively preserved for the Attorney – General of the Federation under section 174 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended.) Whether the information upon which the appellant was tried was not incompetent in view of the failure of the prosecution to file same within the mandatory time frame of 21 days stipulated by sections 9 (3) and 12 (5) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act. Whether the irregularities in the taking of the plea of the appellant at his arraignment were not of such fundamental nature as to deny the appellant fair trial and thus render the whole proceeding a nullity Whether the court below was right in agreeing with the trial court in the circumstances of the case, an identification parade was not necessary, given the fact that the appellant was neither arrested at the scene of crime nor did any of the prosecution witnesses know him before the commission of the crime. Whether the court below was right in holding that the appellant did not provide sufficient particulars to have availed himself of the defence of alibi. Whether given the surrounding circumstances of this case, the court below was right in relying on the doctrine of recent possession in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Armed Robbery.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Emelosu vs Stale (1988) 2 NWLR (Part 78) 524 (1988) 1 NSCC Vol. 19 page 869. Kajubo vs. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Part 73) 21.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Section l (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act No. 47 of 1970. Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Sections 5(b) and l(2)(a) of the Robbery’ and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990. Sections 9(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT