SANI ABUDULLAHI V THE STATE

CORAM

DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

SANI ABUDULLAHI ABDULLAHI BLACK HUSSAINI DANJUMA APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants as plaintiffs were all charge and convicted for rape and grievous bodily harm at the trial court. On appeal there conviction were affirmed by the court below. The further appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the Appeal Court erred in affirming the judgment of the trial Court based on the confessional statements of the accused; which the accused objected to and denied making any statement.Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-NATURE OF-WHETHER CONSTITUTE BEST EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ITS MAKER

“The confessional statement of an accused that is positive, direct, and voluntarily has been held to be the best evidence a criminal court can conveniently admit to convict its maker” PER MUSA DA TTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

CONFESSION-CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-NATURE AND QUALITY OF THAT CAN GROUND CONVICTION

“This Court in numerous of its decisions has been emphatic, and the court below has in its decision towed the line, that a conviction may be based solely on a confessional statement once the confessional statement is direct, positive and unequivocal”. PER MUSA DA TTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION-FORMULATION OF-NEED TO RELATE TO GROUND OF APPEAL-WHERE NOT SO RELATED-EFFECT

“The principle must be restated at this stage that an issue for determination in an appeal must relate to a ground of appeal which challenges the validity of the ratio of the decision being appealed against. Where the ground of appeal as well as the issue which purports to have been distilled there from do not arise from the decision appealed against both are incompetent.
Put differently, an appeal presupposes the existence of some decision appealed against. In the absence of such a decision on a point there cannot, therefore, possibly be an appeal against what has not been decided”. PER MUSA DA TTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-RETRACTION OF VOLUNTARY STATEMENT-EFFECT OF

“An accused who denies making any statement at all and seeks the rejection of one the prosecution asserts he has made would be seen as resiling from that which he indeed voluntarily made. That fact does not in law render the statement, if confessional inadmissible.” PER MUSA DA TTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-WHETHER CONSTITUTE RELEVANT FACTS

It is equally part of the principle that a confessional statement is deemed to constitute relevant facts against the person who made it only if voluntarily given by its maker and/or obtained from him” PER MUSA DA TTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

CASES CITED

Nsofor v. The State (2004) 18 NWLR (PART 905)292.Akpa v. State (2008) 14 NWLR (part 1106) 72 at 9899Olalekan v. State (2001 18 NWLR (part 793) 824.Godwin v. C.A.C. (1998) 14 NWLR (part 584) 162  Kwajaffa v. BON Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (part 889) 146. AG Anambra v. AG Federation & anor NSCQLR (vol 22) (2005) 572  AG Oyo State & Anor v. Fairlake Hotels Ltd & anor LC (vol 4) (2012) 319.  Babalola v. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 115) 264

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Section 27 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT