SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD V. MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES & ORS
March 19, 2025ABBAH TUKUR V. ISMAILA DALHA KUSADA
March 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-02) Legalpedia 49735 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Feb 3, 2023
Suit Number: SC.61/2016
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI KRKERE-EKUN
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Uwani Musa Abba Aji
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU
ADAMU JAURO
PARTIES
STANLEY ANIETE UDO
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUDGEMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged before the High Court for armed robbery contrary. It was alleged that on or about the 17th day of February 2012, the appellant, in the company of others who were at large and while armed with matchet and guns, robbed one Angelica Ekpenyong of her Tecno phone, Etisalat customised phone and gold wristwatch.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised the defense of alibi. At the conclusion of the hearing and after considering the written addresses of learned counsel, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment delivered on 19th May 2014, found him guilty as charged, convicted him and sentenced him to death.
His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 23rd September, 2015, hence the further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING
Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, provides:
“If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
It has been held in a plethora of decisions by this Court that proof beyond reasonable doubt means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It means a degree of compulsion that is consistent with a high degree of probability. It has always been emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt.
See: Miller Vs Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ER 372; Shurumo vs The State (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 73: (2010) LPELR – 3069 (SC) @ 44 – 45 D – C; Kassim vs The State (2017) LPELR – 42586 (SC) @ 19- 20 C- B.
Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC.
ARMED ROBBERY – ESTABLISHING THE CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED
There is no gainsaying that the third ingredient of the offence is often the most crucial in securing a conviction for the offence of armed robbery. Being an offence which carries the death penalty, it is imperative that the Court must be fully satisfied that the accused person was the one who committed the offence or that he was among those who did. If there is any doubt in the mind of the Court as to his culpability, it means the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and he must be given the benefit of such doubt. As the saying goes, it is better for 10 guilty men to walk free than for an innocent man to be convicted of an offence he did not commit. See: State Vs Sani (2018) LPELR -43598 (SC) @ 17 A – D; Ogoala vs The State (1991) 12 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509; Nwaturuocha vs The State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 170 @ 193 D – E; Atto Maba vs The State (2020) LPELR – 52017 (SC) @ 20-21 F- B. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC.
IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN IT IS NECESSARY AND WHEN IT IS NOT
In Atto Maba Vs The State (Supra) at pages 21 – 22 D – E, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC, the settled position of the law was reiterated thus:
“While it is true that an identification parade is a very useful tool in ascertaining the true identity of anyone accused of committing a crime, it is not in every situation that an identification parade must be held. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. An identification parade is only necessary when there is doubt as to the ability of the victim to recognise the suspect or where his identity is in dispute.… It will not be necessary in the following circumstances where: (a) there is a clear and uncontradicted eye witness account and identification of the person who allegedly committed the crime; (b) the victim knew the accused previously; (c) the defendant is linked to the offences by cogent and compelling evidence; and (d) the accused in his confessional statement identified himself with the crime. On the other hand, an identification parade would be necessary where: (a) the victim did not know the accused before and his first acquaintance with him was during the commission of the offence; (b) the victim or witness was confronted by the offender for a very short time; or (c) the victim due to time and circumstances might not have had the opportunity of observing the features of the accused. See: Okiemute Vs The State (supra) [2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 297; (2016) LPELR – 40639 (SC).” In the case of Ikemson & Ors. Vs The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455; (1989) LPELR – 1473 (SC) @ 42 – 43 F – C His Lordship Oputa, JSC opined thus:
“The Courts have therefore got to guard against mistaken identity.
Learned counsel, by purposeful cross-examination, should endeavour to expose the errors of observation, of recognition, of resemblance, etc Identification parade is not just the answer. The trial Court should be satisfied that the evidence of identification proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused before the Court was the person who actually committed the offence charged. – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC.
ALIBI – WHERE IT IS RAISED WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARS AND WHEN IT FAILS
A defence of alibi simply means that the accused person was elsewhere at the time the offence was committed and could not therefore have been in two places at the same time. There is no doubt that where a defence of alibi is properly raised with sufficient particulars, it must be investigated by the Police in order to verify or debunk the claim. The defence must also be raised timeously at the investigation stage at the first opportunity the accused has to respond to a charge against him. It is too late if it is raised in the course of his defence in the witness box.
It was held in Odu & Anor. vs The State (2001) LPELR – 2231 (SC) @ 7 E – F that although there are occasions in which failure to check an alibi may cast doubt for the prosecution, yet where there is positive evidence, the failure to investigate the alibi would not be fatal to conviction. See also: Sale Dagayya VS The State (2008) LPELR- 912 (SC) @ 32 C- E.
A defendant who intends to rely on a defence of alibi must give sufficient particulars of his whereabouts and the details of the persons he was with on the date and at the time the offence was committed. The burden of supplying sufficient particulars lies on him because they are facts peculiarly within his knowledge by virtue of Sections 140, 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Failure to give relevant and sufficient particulars would be fatal to the defence.
The defence of alibi crumbles the moment the prosecution gives superior evidence fixing the defendant not only to the scene of crime but also to his commission of the offence. See: Ezekwe Vs The State (2018) 3 – 4 SC (Pt. 1) 144; (2018) LPELR – 44392 (SC) 7 -9 D – D; Dagayya Vs The State (Supra); Silas Sule Mohammed vs The State (2014) 5 SC (Pt. III) 79; (2014) LPELR – 22916 (SC) @ 59 C- E.
Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC.
ALIBI – WHEN IT IS PROPERLY RAISED – THE FUNCTION OF THE POLICE
The appellant claimed he was elsewhere, and alibi is Latin for elsewhere. It is settled that once a defence of alibi is properly raised during investigations, it is the duty of the Police to investigate and for the Prosecution to disprove it. But for the defence of alibi to be worthy of investigation, it must be precise and specific in terms of the place that the Accused Person was and the person or persons he was with and possibly what he was doing there at the material time. See Shehu V. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112 and Ochemaje V. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57, wherein Tobi, JSC, explained as follows:
“It is not the law that the Police should be involved in a wild goose chase for the whereabouts of the Accused person at the time the crime was committed. No. That is not the function or role of the Police. The Accused must give specific particulars of where he was at the material time to enable the Police move straight to that place to carry out the investigation required by law – – Investigation is not a necessity if the evidence unequivocally points to the guilt of the Accused Person, either in the evidence of the witnesses or under cross- examination of the Accused Person or his Witness.” So, where there is ample evidence to fix an Accused at the scene of the crime, there would be no need for the Police to investigate alibi – see Adewunmi V. State (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1521) 614 wherein Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, observed: “There would be no need for the Investigating Police Officers to investigate an alibi if there is overwhelming evidence against the Accused Person that he participated in the crime.”
Per A. A. Augie, JSC.
ALIBI – WHEN THE PLEA IS DELAYED – DUTY OF THE ACCUSED
An Accused, who chooses to delay a plea of alibi, helpful to his case, owes himself a duty to present adequate particulars and convincing evidence, if he raises such plea for the first time during trial. – Per A. A. Augie, JSC
IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN IT IS OF NO USE
Certainly, the essence of an identification parade is to enable an eyewitness, who never knew the person accused of the crime before, to pick him out from amongst other people. But there are instances where an identification parade is of no use, such as when the suspect is arrested at the scene of the crime; when he is well-known to the victim or witness; and when evidence adduced is sufficient to establish that he is, indeed, the person that committed the crime – see Jua V. State (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 217, Archibong V. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 349, Eyisi (Alias Sunday Eyisi) & 2 Ors. V. State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 555, Alufohai V. State (2014) LPELR-24215(SC), wherein this Court per Ariwoola, JSC (as he then was), very aptly explained as follows:
“It is trite law that identification parade is only necessary whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognize the suspect, who carried out or participated in carrying out the crime alleged or where the identity of the said suspect or an Accused Person is in dispute. But where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, there will be no need for an identification parade to further identify the offender.”
Per A. A. Augie, JSC
ALIBI – MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
It is trite law that for the defence of alibi to be properly raised, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity when the appellant was confronted by the Police with the commission of an offence so that the Police will be in a position to verify or cross-check the alibi. See SAMPSON EBENEHI & ANOR v. THE STATE (2009) 3 SCNJ, IHEONUEKWU NDUKWE v. THE STATE (2009) LPELR-1979(SC).
Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC.
ALIBI – HE MUST GIVE EXPLANATION
It has been established in a plethora of cases that where a Defendant sets up an alibi as a defence, the mere allegation that he was not at the scene of the crime is not enough. He must give some explanation of where he was and who could know of his presence at that other place at the material time of the commission of the crime. See YANOR v. STATE (1965) 1 ALL NLR Pg. 193, SALAMI v. STATE (1988) 3 NWLR Pt. 85 Pg. 670 at 677.
Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC.
ALIBI – SHOULD BE PRECISE AND SPECIFIC
To be worthy of investigation, the defence of alibi should be precise and specific in terms of the place where the accused was and the persons he was with at the material time. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC.
ALIBI – EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY – HE MUST GIVE PARTICULARS
An accused person who wishes to raise the defence of alibi must do so at the earliest opportunity. Particulars of the defence must be set out by the accused person at the earliest opportunity; he has to state his side of the story to the Police to enable them to investigate. In raising the defence, it is not sufficient for the accused person to merely say that he was not at the scene of the crime; he must give particulars of where he was and who he was with at the time the offence was committed. See ONWUTA V. STATE OF LAGOS (2022) LPELR – 57962 (SC); OSSAI V. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2022) LPELR – 57297 (SC); NJOKU V. STATE (2021) LPELR – 53076 (SC).
Per Adamu Jauro, JSC.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Robbery & Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. 398, Vol.2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
2. Evidence Act
