CORAM

---

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

TUKUR HALILU

APPELLANTS 

---

KATSINA STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, FAIR HEARING, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the offence of culpable homicide. The Appellant, as the 2nd defendant, was arraigned with two other defendants before the Katsina State High Court for the murder of one Alhaji Shuaibu Kadi. During the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses, including individuals who identified the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The prosecution also sought to tender the Appellant’s alleged confessional statement, which led to a trial within trial when the Appellant objected on grounds that it was not made voluntarily. During this proceeding, the Appellant retracted the statement, claiming he never made it.

In his defense, the Appellant testified and called three additional witnesses. He raised an alibi claiming he was in Lagos at the time of the crime, not in Katsina State. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful as the Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding breach of his right to fair hearing due to his counsel’s absence during critical stages of the trial, the voluntariness of his alleged confessional statement, and the adequacy of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Supreme Court held that the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached despite his counsel’s failure to file a final address, as he had legal representation throughout the trial proceedings.

3. The Court ruled that although the trial Court adopted an irregular procedure in the trial within trial by making the Appellant commence the proceedings, the confessional statement was correctly admitted after the Appellant retracted it.

4. The Court affirmed that the evidence establishing the Appellant’s presence at the crime scene was credible, and his belated defense of alibi was properly rejected.

5. The judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding the Appellant’s conviction and sentence by the trial Court was affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether considering the circumstances of the abandonment of the Appellant's case by his Counsel and the failure of the Trial Judge to avail the Appellant his right of legal representation throughout his trial as guaranteed by the Constitution and his right to file Final Address, the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the decision of the Trial Judge that the Appellant’s right of fair hearing was not breached.?

2. Whether having regard to the clear evidence of torture and coercion which the Appellant was subjected to by the Police, the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the decision of the Trial Judge that the Confessional Statement of the Appellant was voluntarily made?

3. Whether, despite the absence of a positive element of intention, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right or did not misdirect themselves in affirming the finding of the Trial Judge that the Prosecution had proved the case of culpable homicide against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – DETERMINATION OF FAIR HEARING:

---

“The term fair hearing can in simple terms be described as a fair trial in which both sides to the dispute are given equal opportunity to present their respective cases before an unbiased Court. It also means a trial conducted in accordance with all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties before the Court. Fair hearing is upheld by two twin pillars of justice – audi alteram partem which means hear the other side and nemo judex in causa sua which is, do not be a judge in your own cause–” Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 Evidence Act 2011

 Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015

 Penal Code

 Criminal Procedure Code Act

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT