GENERAL COTTON MILL LIMITED VS TRAVELLERS PALACE HOTEL
April 9, 2025CHIEF OBASI LAWSON VS ELDER CHINEDU OKORONKWO &ORS
April 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018-12) Legalpedia (SC) 43341
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Fri Dec 14, 2018
Suit Number: SC. 145/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
UMARU SUNDAY APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Accused person now Appellant was arrested with 18kilograms of cannabis sativa (otherwise known and called “Indian Hemp). Upon his arrest, he made an extra judicial statement to the officers and men of National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, which said confessional statement was tendered at the trial court and marked Exhibit A, during his trial. In the said statement, the thumb prints or thumb impressions of the Appellant were contained in several pages as means of authentication of the said statement by him. When the Appellant was first arraigned before the trial court, he had no defense counsel hence, the case was adjourned to enable him obtain the services of a counsel to defend him. Subsequently, he was arraigned before the Federal High Court on a single count charge of being found in unlawful possession of or dealing in 18 kilograms of cannabis sativa (or India Hemp), contrary to and punishable under Section 11C of the NDLEA Act, Cap N30, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was summarily convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment. All these transpired in the presence of his defence counsel. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the court below where his appeal was dismissed for want of merit. Still aggrieved with the judgment of the court below, the Appellant has now appealed to the apex court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Illiterates Protection Law does not apply to criminal Proceedings, notwithstanding that there was no law which expressly or impliedly render the Illiterates Protection Law in applicable to criminal proceedings. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the appellant was NOT AN Illiterate, notwithstanding that Exhibit A discloses sufficient evidence of the appellant’s illiterate status. Whether the Court of Appeal was right **** admitted and utilised the confessional statement, Exhibit A, without the prosecution calling the officer who recorded and interpreted the said Exhibit A to testify.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DOCUMENT- IMPLICATION OF A MERE THUMB IMPRESSION ON A DOCUMENT
“It is trite law that mere thumb-impression on a document tantamount to prima facie as in this instant case, is prima facie evidence that the person who appended his thumb-impression is/was an illiterate.”
ISSUE OF ILLITERACY – WHETHER THE ISSUE OF ILLITERACY CAN BE PRESUMED BY COURT
“Therefore, the issue or question on who is actually an illiterate cannot be presumed by court but it is an issue or question which must be proved by evidence and as I stated supra, the burden to prove such assertion of illiteracy lies squarely on the person who alleged such illiteracy.”
“ILLITERATE”- DEFINITION OF THE WORD “ILLITERATE”
“In fact, in the case of Ntiashagwa V Amodu (1 509)WNLR 273 the word “illiterate” has been defined to mean “a person who is unable to read and understanding and to express his thoughts by writing in the language used in the document made or prepared on his behalf. This definition was endorsed by Kutigi JSC, later CJN (of blessed memory), in the case of His Highness V.A. Otitoju vs Governor of Ondo State & Ors (1994)SCNJ (pt.II)224 at 234.”
DOCUMENT – WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A JURAT IN A DOCUMENT SIGNED BY AN ILLITERATE RENDERS SUCH DOCUMENT NULL AND VOID
“On the complaint that Exhibit A did not contain a “jurat’ I think that is of no moment, because absence of jurat in a document signed by an illiterate does not render such document null and void since a jurat therefore not be used against his interest. See Wilson Vs Oshin (2000)6 SC (pt. III)1.”
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A TRIAL COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is trite law that where a person makes a free and voluntary confessional statement which is direct and positive and is properly proved, a trial court can comfortably convict him even on such confessional statement alone, without necessarily looking for any corroborative evidence. See Kim v State (1992)4 NWLR (pt.233)17; Queen v Itule [1961)2 SC NLR 183; Ejinima vs State (1991)6 NWLR (pt.200)627; Smart v State (2016)EJSC Vol.36)145; Egbogbonome V The State (1993)7 NWLR (pt.306 383; Oseni Vs The State (2012)5 NWLR (pt.l293)351. It is in fact a well-settled law that a court can convict an accused person based on his confession alone in as much as Yahaya V The State [1986)12 SC 282; Stephen vs The State (1986)5 NWLR (pt.46)978. In other words, once a court is fully convinced of the truth of a confession, such confession or extrajudicial statement alone can ground a conviction. See also Edinigere v State (1996)8 NWLR (pt.464); Aremu v State (1991)7 NWLR (pt.201)l.”
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – WHETHER A STATEMENT SOUGHT TO BE TENDERED BY ITS MAKER REQUIRES CERTIFICATION
“The appellant had also raised an issue that Exhibit ‘A’ being a public document ought to have been certified before admission. I would rather go along with the position of the respondent to be that public documents such as Exhibit ‘A’ are proved in their primary form by tendering the originals or in their secondary form by tendering the certified true copies and so when a statement sought to be tendered by its maker or one of its makers, that is in the original form and certification is dispensed with. That was the situation herein. See In the Master of MV. “Delso” & Ors v Ocean Steamship Nig. Ltd (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.901) 88 at 103; Nagbado v Faruk (2018) LPELR – 44909 (SC) pages 17-18 per Sanusi JSC.”
OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT- EFFECT OF A COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT
“The law is settled, and it is so restated in several decisions of this Court that where an accused is represented by a counsel, it is the duty of such counsel to object to the tendering of any statement made by the accused that is incriminating. Where such counsel failed to play his part as to objecting to admissibility of such statement or where the counsel, within his authority as counsel expressly consents to the tendering of the statement, and the statement is admitted in evidence; he cannot be heard to complain subsequently that the statement was not properly admitted in evidence: R v. Igwe (1960) SCNLR 158; Dawa v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 236; Obidiozo v. State 1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 748; Okaroh v. State (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 125) 128, at 136 – 137. In this case, Exhibit A, the extrajudicial statement of the Appellant, and other documents were tendered from the Bar without objection. The Appellant is estopped from complaining, as he does in this appeal, that Exhibit A was wrongly admitted in evidence: Alade v. Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183; Raimi v. Akintoyo (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 26) 97; Nkie v. F.R.N. (2014) ALL FWLR (pt. 754) 178.”
PLEA OF GUILTY- IMPLICATION OF A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CHARGE
“Where an accused person is represented by counsel and he pleads guilty the plea of guilty brings the trial to an end and what is left to be done is for the judge to convict and sentence him. A plea of guilty to a charge is conclusive evidence that the accused/appellant committed the offence. A plea of guilty is the best evidence against an accused person. It is even better than eye witness evidence. See Akpa v State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt.1106) p.72.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Criminal Procedure Code Criminal Procedure, (statement to police officers) Rules of 1960
Illiterate Protection Law of Kwara State
National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap N30, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
