ORE-OFE ADESINA (AKA ALHAJI) & ANOR VS THE STATE Archives - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity

CORAM

MARY UKAEGO PETER ODILI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. ORE-OFE ADESINA (AKA ALHAJI)

2.RASHIDI OLAWALE (AKA EMEKA)

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused/ Appellant were charged in the High court for armed robbery, for robbing a bank, they were apprehended trying to escape with the loot when their car had an accident. They were caught by the police with a fraction of the money, and subsequently made a confessional statement admitting to have participated in the robbery. They were sentenced to death by the High Court, and the appeal is against this decision. The Accussed/ Appellant claimed that their conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and proper identification was not made.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed for lacking in substance and merit and the conviction of the two lower courts was affirm.

ISSUES

1.Whether the justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law that there was cogent or corroborative evidence outside the confessional statement that made the confessions of the appellants probable.?

2.Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the trial court when none of the members of staff of the bank and the policemen on duty were called to identify the appellants as the persons they saw at the scene of crime.?

3.Whether the circumstantial evidence in this case was cogent, direct, consistent, unequivocal and irresistibly led to the conclusion that the appellants were among the armed robbers who invaded and robbed the Gateway Bank, Ijebu-Ode on 28/2/2008.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CALLING OF WITNESSES BY PROSECUTION

“it is the prerogative of the prosecution to call witnesses relevant to its case. It is also settled law that the prosecution is not bound to call every person that was linked to the scene of crime by physical presence to give evidence of what he saw” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

CONVICTION BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

“Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground a conviction only where the inferences drawn from the whole history of the case points strongly to the commission of the crime by the accused.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

THE PURPOSE OF AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE

“I must explain that the purpose of an identification parade in all criminal trials is to show that the person charged with the offence actually committed the offence. It is not in every case that an identification parade is necessary. Where the prosecution witness has knowledge of the accused person, identification parade is not necessary. In order to ascribe any values to the evidence of an eyewitness identification of a criminal, the court in guiding against cases of mistaken identity must meticulously consider the following issues-
1. Circumstances in which the eyewitness saw the suspect; was it in difficult conditions?
2. The length of the time the witness saw the suspect or defendant at a glance or longer observation?
3. The opportunity of close observation.
4. Previous contact between the two parties.
5. The lighting conditions.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

CONVICTION BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

“In other words, for circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, it must lead to one conclusion; namely the guilt of the accused person. Where there are other possibilities that others other than the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence with which the accused was charged, such an accused cannot be convicted of the offence.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

WEIGHT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

“Generally speaking, a confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value than all other proofs and it can ground a conviction if the court is satisfied with its truth; there is however a duty on the court to test the truth of a confession by examining it in the light of the other credible evidence before the court which test will enable the court to determine whether
1. There is anything outside the confession to show that it is true
2. It is corroborated
3. The statements made in it are in fact true as far as they can be tested
4. The prisoner had the opportunity of committing the crime
5. The confession is possible
6. It is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and which have been proved” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

WHEN IDENTIFICATION PAREDE IS NOT NECESSARY

“It is trite however that where an accused person by his confession has-identified himself, there would be no need for any further identification parade.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

“When confessional statement has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive, unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, it is enough to sustain or base the conviction of an accused. It does not matter whether the maker retracted the statement in the course of the trial. Such a retraction does not necessarily make the confession inadmissible.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

DEFINITION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

“Under the criminal legal system, circumstantial evidence is defined as the evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undesigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. Circumstantial evidence means that there are a number of circumstances which make a complete unbroken chain of evidence, if that is established to the satisfaction of the court, it may well and properly act upon such evidence” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

DEFINITION OF A CONFESSION

“By virtue of Section 27 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap 112 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. It is an extra-judicial statement made by an accused person to the police containing assertion of admission showing that he participated in the commission of offence for which he stands accused. Once admitting the charge or creating the impression that he committed the offence charged; the statement becomes confessional.” PER OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C

CASES CITED

Egboghonome v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.306) pg. 383.

Bature v. State (1994) 1 NWLR (pt.320) pg. 267.

Solola v. State (2005) 11 NWLR (pt.937) pg.460.

Edhigere v. State (1996) 8 NWLR (pt.464) pg.1.

Ihuebeke v. The State (2000) 4 SC (pt.1 pg. 303.

Idowu v. State (2000) 7 SC (pt.11) pg.50.

Alarape v. State (2001) 14 WRN 1.R v. Skyes (1913) 18 CR AIP pg.233

Dawa v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 236.

Ogejele v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.71) pg.414.

Mohammed v. State (2007) 13 NWLR (pt.1050) pg.186.

Nwaeze v. State (1996) 2 NWLR (pt.428) pg.1.

Akinmoju v. State (2000) 4 SC (pt.1) pg.64.

Duruwode v. State (2000) 12 SC (pt.1) pg.1

Ubani v. State (2003) 18 NWLR (pt.851) pg.22

Eyisi v. the State (2000) 15 NWLR (pt.697) pg.553.

Okosi v. State (1989) 1 NWLR (pt.100) pg.642.

Archibong v. State (2004) 1 NWLR (pt.855)

Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.110) pg. 455.

Ukorah v. State (1977) 4 SC pg.167.

Ukpabi v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (pt.884) pg.439.

Ebri v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (pt.885) pg.589.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

SECTION 148 (A) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

May 17, 2025

ORE-OFE ADESINA (AKA ALHAJI) & ANOR VS THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 78162 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Jun 15, 2012 Suit Number: SC.304/2010 CORAM MARY UKAEGO PETER ODILI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT […]