NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS VS BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
April 3, 2025NASIRU AUWALU A.K.A DAN MAKO OR BARACK OBAMA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 11503
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Tue Jul 2, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/165C/17
CORAM
PARTIES
YUSHA’U HAMISU APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Defendant/Appellant was arraigned in the Federal High Court, Yola, alongside seven (7) others on a seven-count charge, wherein he was convicted and sentenced based on counts I and II of Conspiracy and Obstruction of officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) from carrying out their lawful duty. He pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the Respondent as prosecution called ten (10) witnesses, all officers of the NDLEA. The Appellant in his defence testified as the DW4, denied knowing the 1st Defendant before his arrest and made out that he was at a different place on the day of the incident. The Appellant also denied knowing any of the other seven Defendants, and made out that he did not confess to participating in the obstruction of NDLEA officers as appeared in Exhibit “PW5 B”, he also denied mentioning any of the other Defendants as participating in the obstruction of the NDLEA officers. The other Defendants also gave evidence in their respective defences, denying knowledge of each other. It was made out by the Appellant that the Defendants did not incriminate each other. Notwithstanding, the trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as charged. The Appellant who was dissatisfied with his conviction, filed this appeal before this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Respondent proved the case of conspiracy and obstruction of officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) while carrying out their duty, beyond reasonable doubt to have warranted the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHETHER RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT RENDERS SAME INADMISSIBLE
“The learned trial Judge having admitted the confessional statement in evidence, it became part of the case of the prosecution which the court was bound to consider for its probative value. The fact that it was retracted is immaterial, otherwise any accused person that has confessed to committing an offence, if he changes his mind, would retract same and go scot free. In Idowu vs. State (2000) LPELR-1429 (SC) at PP 44 – 45, Paragraphs F-A, Wali, JSC in respect of a retracted confessional statement held thus:
…mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person does not render it inadmissible or worthless and untrue in considering his guilt. See: R vs. Skykes (1913) 8 CR. ADP 233 and Kanu vs. The King 14 WACA 30. If the confessional statement is satisfactorily proved, a conviction founded on it without more, will be sustained by an appellate court. See: The Queen vs. Obiasa (1962) 1 ALL NLR 645; Paul Onochie & 7 Ors vs. The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; Obue vs. The State (1976) 2 SC 141 and Jimoh-Yesufu vs. The State (1976) 6 SC 167.
See also Darlinton vs. FRN (2018) LPELR-43 850 (SC) PP. 17-18, Paragraphs D-A and Mumini & Ors vs. State (1975) LPELR- 1926 (SC) P. 18, Paragraphs D-E.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY- WHETHER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN CO-CONSPIRATORS ESTABLISHES THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“On the proof of the offence of conspiracy, it is enough once it is shown that the accused persons have a common criminal design or agreement (by two or more people) to do certain things. The crime is complete merely on the agreement to commit an unlawful act or perform a lawful act by an unlawful means. See, State vs. Salawu (2011) LPELR – 8252 (SC) PP.38-39, Paragraphs E-A, Kayode vs. State (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC) P. 66, Paragraphs E-F and Ajayi vs. State (2013) LPELR – 199941 (SC) P. 28, Paragraph C.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – STATUS OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE
The evidence adduced by the PW5 was not challenged under cross examination, the trial court was therefore bound to act on such unchallenged evidence, page 353 of the printed record of appeal. See, Omoregbe Vs. Lawani (1980) LPELR – 2655 (SC) P. 16, Paragraphs A-D, MTN VS. Corporate Communication Investment Ltd. (2019) LPELR – 47042 (SC) PP. 53-54, Paragraphs B-C and Simon Ezechukwu & Anor Vs. I.O.C. Onwuka (2016) LPELR – 26055 (SC) P. 19, Paragraphs A-C.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
COURT- WHETHER COURTS CAN CONVICT SOLELY ON AN ACCUSED PERSON’S CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“On the appellant’s confessional statement it is trite that the court can convict on the confessional statement of an accused alone without more. It is the best evidence, in that the accused in his own words has admitted committing the offence as long as the confession is free, voluntarily made, direct and positive. It is the best proof of what he has done. See, Kamila vs. State (2018) LPELR- 45603 (SC), Hassan vs. State (2001) LPELR 1358 (SC), Alabi vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 307) 5, Fabiyi vs. State (2015) 6-7 (SC) (PT.1) 83 and Dogo vs. The State (2013) 2-3 SC (PT.II) 75 at 92 -94. I held earlier in this judgment that the learned trial judge was right to have found that the appellant’s confessional statement was voluntarily made.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
