SILAS SULE MOHAMMED VS THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

SILAS SULE MOHAMMED APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and the 2nd accused person were arraigned at the High Court on two counts of armed robbery contrary to section 1 of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal code.  At the point of their arrest, neither of them raised the defence of alibi nor denied the commission of the offence; they did raise the defence of alibi for the first time at trial. They both pleaded not guilty to the charge of robbery and the murder of one Obioma Nwokocha who was a night guard to a petrol station that was burgled by the robbers. After due consideration of evidence by the trial judge, they were convicted for the lesser offences of robbery and culpable homicide not punishable with death. Not happy with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which heard and dismissed same. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant has appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the trial court’s discountenancing of the defence of alibi put up by the appellant?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court, which conviction was based solely on the purported confessional statement of the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEA OF ALIBI- DUTY OF AN ACCUSED TO FURNISH PARTICULARS OF THE PLEA OF ALIBI RAISED BY HIM- EFFECT OF FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE PLEA OF ALIBI

“It is the duty of the accused to furnish particulars of the plea of alibi put up by him. He must furnish his where about and those present with him at the material time of the incident. It is then left for the prosecution to disprove same. Failure to investigate may lead to acquittal.” PER FABIYI JSC

ALIBI- MEANING OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI

“It is a defence where an accused alleges that at the time when the offence with which he is charged was committed, he was elsewhere”. PER FABIYI JSC

DEFENCE OF ALIBI- REQUIREMENT FOR THE SUSTAINANCE OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI- ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROVING ALIBI

“It is basic that for the defence of alibi to be sustained, it must be raised timeously at the earliest opportunity preferably at the interrogation by the Police. The onus is always on the accused person to provide the Police with information as to where he was when the crime was committed; with whom he was and what he was doing thereat. It is only when the above information is supplied by the accused that the burden shifts on the prosecution to investigate the alibi put up.” PER FABIYI JSC

CONTRADICTIONS- WHEN CAN CONTRADICTION NEGATE A CONVICTION

“For contradictions to negate a conviction they must be material and fundamental in the determination of the guilt of the accused person.” PER MUHAMMAD JSC

DEFENCE OF ALIBI- WHEN CAN THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI BE DESTROYED

“It is also trite that where there is evidence fixing the accused at the scene of crime like in the case in hand, the defence of alibi is automatically destroyed”. PER PETER – ODILI JSC

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHETHER A COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHEN WILL A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BE TREATED AS BEST EVIDENCE

“It is trite that a court can convict an accused person solely on his confessional statement in so far as same was given freely and voluntarily and without any shred of equivocation. Where it is well proved, as herein, it will be treated as the best evidence.” PER FABIYI JSC

CONTRADICTION -NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION THAT WILL BE FATAL

“Contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution that will be fatal must be substantial. Minor contradiction which did not affect the credibility of witnesses may not be fatal. Contradiction must relate to the substance. It must touch on an element of the offence(s) charged. Trivial and miniature contradiction should not vitiate a trial.” PER FABIYI JSC

CASES CITED

Ahmed V. The State (1999) 5 SCNJ 236Ankwa v. The State (1969) 1 All NLR 133;Bello v. Police (1956) SCNLR 113Gachi v. The State (1973) 1 NMLR 33Jimoh Awopeju & 6 ors V. The State (2002) 2 SCM 47Odu & Anr. v. The State (2001) 5 SCNJ 115 at 120; (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 772) 668.Ogudo V. The State (2011) 12 SC (Pt 1) 71Omisade v. Queen (1964) 1 All NLR 233;Onuchukwu v The State (1998) 4 SCNJ 36Queen v. lyanda (1960) SCNLR 595;Queen v. Turner (1957) WRNLR 34Sele v. The State (1993) 1 SCNJ 15 at 22-23, (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt 269) 276.Sowemimo v The State (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 385) p. 515Yanor v. The State (1965) NMLR 337

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act, Cap. E14,

Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT