CORAM

---

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI      JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI      JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTITO MUMAMMAD    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI  JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI      JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI    JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

THE STATE    APPELLANTS

---

JAMES GWANGWAN

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent alongside six others who all confessed to participating in the robbery activities in Offa and its environs, were charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004 respectively. The charges against two of the accused person were dropped at the trial court leaving the Respondent and three other persons to face trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court convicted the Respondent along with others for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery and sentenced them to 14 years imprisonment each. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court set aside the judgment of the trial court and entered a verdict of discharge and acquittal for the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Prosecutor has appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower court was right to have held that the prosecution did not sustain the charge of conspiracy against the respondent before the trial court?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ONUS OF PROOF – ONUS OF PROOF IS ACHIEVED BY ENSURING THAT ALL THE NECESSARY AND VITAL INGREDIENTS OF THE CHARGE(S) IS PROVED BY EVIDENCE

---

“In criminal proceedings, the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this would be achieved by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the charge or charges are proved by evidence. See Yongo V. Commissioner of Police (1992) LPELR – 3528 (SC), (1992) 4 SCNJ 113, Ogundujan V. State (1991) LPELR – 2333 (SC), (1991) 3 NWLR (pt 181) 519, Akibge V. IOG (1959) 4 FSC 203, Onubogu V. The State (1974) 9SC 1 at 20, Babuga V. State (1996) LPELR -701 (SC), (1996) 7 NWLR (pt. 460) 279.”PER J. I. OKORO J.S.C

---

GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“It is already settled law that in criminal trials, the prosecution can establish the guilt of an accused person for the commission of the alleged offence by any of the following:-
(a) The confessional statement of the accused;
(b) Circumstantial evidence;
(c) Evidence of an eye witness.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

---

CORROBORATION- MEANING OF CORROBORATION

---

“Corroboration means or entails the acts of supporting or strengthening a statement of a witness by fresh evidence of another witness.
“In Sale Dagayya V. The State (2006) 7 NWLR (pt. 980) 637, this court held that corroboration does not mean that the witness corroborating must use the exact or very like words, unless the matter involves some arithmetics.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- RELEVANCE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS.

---

“In the Evidence Act, the procedural law, in particular Section 27 (2) recognizes the relevance of confessional statements in criminal proceedings if such statements are made voluntarily. See; Agboola Vs. The State (2013) 8 SCM 157; (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 619; (2013) 54 NSCQR (Pt.ll) 1162; Abdullah Ibrahim Vs. The State (2013) LPELR 21883 (SC) (2013) 12 SCM (Pt.3) 547; (2014) 9 WRN 35 at 65; (2014) All FWR (Pt.721) 1410 at 1431; Alufohai Vs. The State (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt.1445) 172; (2015) All FWLR (Pt.765) 198.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

---

STANDARD OF PROOF – DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

---

“It is now well settled that in our criminal jurisprudence, in order for the prosecution to succeed whenever the commission of a crime is in issue against an accused person, he is under a duty to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It must however be noted that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt.” PER J. I. OKORO J.S.C

---

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- CONSPIRACY DO NOT LIE MERELY IN THE INTENTION TO DO AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR A LAWFUL ACT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS

---

“The pitch and substance of the offence of conspiracy do not lie merely in the intention or thoughts of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, but in the agreement between them to carry out their lawful intention.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- THE ACTUS REUS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY IS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AT LEAST TWO PERSONS TO DO AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR A LAWFUL ACT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS

---

“The actus reus of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between at least two persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. There is no need to prove that the parties actually met and put their heads together. Persons who have never met or seen each other could conspire together by communication especially nowadays where communication is made easy and cheap by the introduction of the mobile phone.” PER J.I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY-DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION IN PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

---

“In order to prove a charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the element of agreement to do something which is unlawful or to do something which is lawful by unlawful means. Conspiracy is an offence which is difficult to prove because it is often hatched in secrecy. It is usually inferred from the facts and evidence led. More often, circumstantial evidence is used to point to the fact the confederates had agreed on the plan to commit an overt act to infer conspiracy. See David Omotola & Ors V. The State (2009) 7 NWLR (pt. 1139) 148, (2009) LPELR – 2663 (SC).”PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

CORROBORATION- IMPORTANCE OF CORROBORATION

---

“Evidence corroborating the content of a confessional statement is all the more required where the accused resiles from his confessional statement. See Akpan V. The State (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt 737) 745, Hassan V. State (2001) LPELR 1358 (sc) 12-13 and Ozana Ubiecho V. State (2005) 2 SC (Pt 1) 18.” PER. M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

---

TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL FUNCTIONS ONLY IN CASES QUESTIONING THE VOLUNTARINESS OR OTHERWISE OF CONFESSIONS

---

“The rule with respect to conducting a trial within a trial operates only in cases questioning the voluntariness or otherwise of confessions.It does not apply to questions of weight to be attached to admissible evidence admitted. The question of weight of evidence is always decided at the end of the trial in relation to the totality of the evidence adduced before the court. See Owie V. The State (1985) 4 SC (pt. 2) I, (1985) LPELR – 2847 (SC), R. V. Nwigboke &Ors (1959) 4 FSC 101 at 102.”PER J. I. OKORO. J.S.C

---

INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT

---

“The law is trite and well established that it is open for an appellate court to interfere with findings of a trial court when such findings have been made on legally inadmissible evidence, or they are perverse or are indeed not based on any evidence before the Court. See the cases of Sele V. The State (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 267) P. 276 at 282 and Iyaro V. The State (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 69) P. 256.” PER. C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS- DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“Generally, in any dispute as to the voluntary nature of any given statement, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove positively and affirmatively beyond reasonable doubt that the statement is voluntary.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- EFFECT OF A VOLUNTARY, POSITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION

---

“In other words, it is already settled that where an extrajudicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is found positive and unequivocal amounting to an admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt, regardless of the fact that the maker resiles therefrom or retracted it altogether at the trial. See; Eghoghonome Vs. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383; Osetola &Anor Vs the State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt.1329) 251; (2012) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 347; (2012) 6 SC (Pt.10) 148; (2012) 50 (2)NSCQR 598.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – A STATEMENT MADE BY AN ACCUSED PERSON IMPLICATING A CO-ACCUSED PERSON IS INADMISSIBLE.

---

“A statement made to the Police by an accused person implicating a co-accused is not admissible against that accused.” PER. J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C

---

ONUS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL – THE ONUS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL FIRMLY REST ON THE PROSECUTION.

---

“The adversarial system of adjudication in our Criminal justice set up is well established that the onus of proof is firmly rested on the prosecution following the Constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused person until proven guilty. See the case of Ukwunnenyi V. The State (1989) 20 NSCC (Pt 2) 42 at 59. Also the case of Ikwunne V. The State (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt 658) 550 at 56.”PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

---

CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – QUALITIES OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

---

“For a piece of evidence to be corroborative, it must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting him or tending to connect him with the crime.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION WHO INTEND TO USE THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS OF AN ACCUSED PERSON AGAINST A CO-ACCUSED.

---

“Where the prosecution intends to use the statement against a co-accused, as herein, then the prosecution is bound to make a copy of the incriminating statement available to the co-accused for him to reject or adopt same.” PER. J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – A COURT CAN ACT ON THE RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“It is now well settled that the fact that an accused has retracted a confessional statement does not mean that the court cannot act upon it and rely on same to convict him. Ozana Ubiecho V. The State (2005) LPELR – 3283 (SC), (2005) 2 SC (pt. I) 18, Edamine V. The State (1996) 3 NWLR (pt. 438) 530, Akpan V. The State (2001) LPELR -383 (SC) (2001) 15 NWLR (pt. 737) 745.”PER. J.I. OKORO. J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act

Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 200

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT