B.P (WEST AFRICA) LIMITED VS AKINOLA ALLEN
September 4, 2025THE QUEEN VS BELLO
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1962-11) Legalpedia 47366 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Thu Nov 29, 1962
Suit Number: SC 252/1962
CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ONYEAMA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
UGOJI EZEKPE AND ORS
APPELLANTS
THE QUEEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE-CORROBORATION—ACCOMPLICE—APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The two appellants were convicted on four counts of corruption as policemen, and on a count of false pretences; they were acquitted on the 6th count, which accused them of demanding money with menaces with intent to steal. The complainants had given them money to avoid having their illegal cartons of cigarette confisicated.
HELD
The appeals are allowed, the convictions and sentences are quashed, and verdicts of acquittal shall be entered for both appellants.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHO DETERMINES IF A PERSON IS PARTICIPES CRIMINIS
“Whether a witness for the Crown is a participes criminis is a matter to be decided in the circumstances of each case.” Per BAIRAMIAN F.J.
PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING AN ACCOMPLICE
“It would be wiser to focus one’s attention rather on the question of accomplice vel non, and ask oneself-
(A) did the witness counsel the commission of the offence? or
(B) did he aid in the commission of the offence? or
(C) did he help to cover up the offence?
If the answer is yes, to any one of those questions, then the witness was an accomplice.” Per BAIRAMIAN F.J.
CASES CITED
1. Queen v. Ezechi, (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 113
2. Davies v. D.P.P., (1954) A.C., 378, 400-402
3. Baskerville., (1916) 2 K.B. 658, at 667
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Ordinance
