CORAM
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
YAHUZA MUSA
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, APPELLATE PROCEDURE, CONSPIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, RETRACTED CONFESSIONS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on March 31, 2014 in Appeal No. CA/L/867/2011, which affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State in criminal case No. LD/118C/2006 delivered on March 1, 2011. The High Court had convicted and sentenced the appellant to 21 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
The case originated from an incident where the victim (PW1) was robbed of his Toyota Corolla and other items at gunpoint by three men who drove off with the car. The victim immediately reported the incident to the police, who radioed all police stations, putting them on alert. The stolen car was later found in a swamp where it had skidded off the road. Due to the suspicious behavior of the men in the car, villagers in the area apprehended two of the three men, including the appellant, while one escaped. The captured individuals were handed over to the police.
During the investigation, the appellant made two confessional statements (Exhibits D and H) at the State C.I.D at Panti and at Anthony Police Station respectively. In these statements, the appellant confessed to successive agreements between himself, his co-convicts, and others at large to rob cars, drive them through Badagry across the border, and sell them to one Umoru in Benin Republic. At trial, the appellant retracted these confessions, claiming they were not voluntarily made.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the two lower courts, holding that they were not perverse and were justified by the evidence presented.
3. The court held that a judgment of a Court is presumed correct, and an appeal against a judgment seeks to displace this presumption by contending that the judgment erred in certain respects.
4. The Supreme Court ruled that concurrent findings of fact are presumed correct and should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse, violate the law, and have caused injustice.
5. The court found that the concurrent findings of guilt were justified by the evidence contained in the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3, the exhibits, and the appellant’s extra-judicial confessions.
6. The court held that a court can safely convict an accused person on a retracted confessional statement once the confession is voluntary, positive, direct, and credible, though some corroborating evidence is desirable.
7. The argument regarding the lack of an illiterate jurat in the appellant’s statements was deemed incompetent as the ground of appeal that made this complaint was abandoned by the appellant.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the conviction of the Appellant in the absence of credible evidence adduced at the trial Court by the prosecution in proof of the offence for which the Appellant was charged?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court solely on the strength of the purported extra-judicial statements of the Appellant, which said statements were retracted by the Appellant at the trial?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS – JUDGMENT OF COURT PRESUMED CORRECT EXCEPT PROVED OTHERWISE
The settled law is that a judgment of a Court is presumed correct. An appeal against a judgment seeks to displace this presumption and therefore contends that the judgment erred or is wrong in certain respects or for certain reasons.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS – CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT PRESUMED CORRECT
This appeal is against the Court of Appeal findings of facts concurring with those of the trial Court on the evidence. The law presumes that the concurrent findings are correct and should not be interfered with unless they are shown not to be correct because they are perverse and violate the law and have caused injustice thereby.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
SCOPE OF APPEAL AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDINGS – LIMITATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
This presumption limits the scope of appeals against concurrent findings of fact to appeals on grounds that the findings are perverse or contrary to law and limits the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such appeals to only appeals on grounds that the findings are perverse or contrary to law. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
SPECIFIC ISSUES – NECESSITY TO RAISE SPECIFIC ISSUES RATHER THAN GENERAL COMPLAINTS
The Supreme Court in Opara V D.S (Nig) Ltd (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002 342 at 363) adopted its decisions in Ndiwe V Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129 at 139-140 that where the trial Court makes a finding of fact on a specific issue before it, such an issue should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal by the appellant who is challenging the finding of fact and it cannot be covered under the omnibus ground of appeal. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
CONSPIRACY – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS AND PROOF OF CONSPIRACY
It is also well settled that the essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement and association to do an unlawful thing which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that thing be criminal or not and whether or not the accused persons had knowledge of the unlawfulness. Evidence of conspiracy is usually a matter of inference from the fact of doing things towards a common purpose.- Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
ABANDONMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO DISTILL ISSUES FROM GROUNDS
An appellant abandons a ground of his or her appeal when no issue is raised from it for determination in the appeal. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
A Court can safely convict an accused person on his retracted confessional statement once the confession is voluntary, positive, direct and credible. Even though the retraction does not diminish the legal value of such a confession, it is desirable that some evidence should, even slightly, corroborate it.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
PERVERSITY – APPELLATE INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS
There is nothing of fact or law in the record that shows that the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts are perverse. The evidence of the victim, PW1, and the evidence of some other eyewitnesses including those who apprehended the appellant showed irrefutably that the findings of the two Courts below were grounded in law and facts. – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
BURDEN ON APPELLANT – APPELLANT’S DUTY TO JUSTIFY DISTURBANCE OF CONCURRENT FINDINGS
This appeal is against concurrent findings of facts made by the two Courts below. The appellant has not proffered any cogent reason why those concurrent findings should be disturbed by this Court. The concurrent findings are deemed correct. – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
WEIGHT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – COURT’S POWER TO CONVICT SOLELY ON CONFESSION
Exhibits D and H are the appellant’s confessional statements. The law grants the Court the unbridled licence to convict an accused person solely on a confession where it is free, direct, voluntary, cogent, clear, unequivocal.- Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.S.C.
CORROBORATION – VALUE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
In any case, the concurrent findings of guilt are justified by the evidence contained in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3, exhibits D and H, the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant made at Anthony Police Station and State C.I.D Panti, Lagos State and exhibit B, the photograph of the stolen car.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
EVIDENCE EVALUATION – WEIGHT ACCORDED TO CONSISTENT AND CORROBORATED EVIDENCE
The two confessions made at different police stations and date corroborate each other. They are also corroborated by the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in several relevant particulars. The appellant in his testimony in defence corroborated his said extra-judicial confessions when he admitted that he and the 1st accused were in the car along Badagri-Seme Road that skidded off the road into a swampy ditch and that he was arrested after he came out of that car. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
BINDING NATURE OF UNCHALLENGED DECISIONS – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAL AGAINST DECISIONS
The decision of the trial Court that they are similar and voluntarily made was not appealed against. By not appealing against the decision, the appellant accepted it as correct, conclusive and binding on him. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2.. Criminal Code Law of Lagos State
3. Illiterate Protection Law, Cap 13, Laws of Lagos State 2003
4. Evidence Act, 2011
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT