CORAM

---

HON. JUSTICE A. A. B. GUMEL JCA

HON. JUSTICE U. A. OGAKWU JCA

HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA JCA

---

PARTIES

---

YUSUF SALEH (ALIAS SUPERSTAR)

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned alongside four others for criminal conspiracy and armed robbery contrary to Sections 97 and 298 of the Penal Code. The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered exhibits including the Appellant’s confessional statements. The trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to 20 years imprisonment for armed robbery and 6 months for criminal conspiracy. The Appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erroneously relied solely on his confessional statement.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

2. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The confessional statements were properly evaluated and corroborated by other evidence.

4. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial court.?

2. Whether from all the facts and surrounding circumstances, the trial court was right to convict the Appellant solely on his confessional statement.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF:

---

“Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 presumes an accused person innocent until he is proved guilty. Accordingly, the burden of proof placed on the prosecution is not discharged until the guilt of an accused person is properly established.”– Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – NECESSITY WITH CONFESSION:

---

“Where an accused person confesses to having committed the offence for which he is charged, an identification parade is unnecessary, it would amount to waste of time to go looking for the person who committed an offence where the person has come forth to say that he committed the offence.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

RECOVERY OF STOLEN ITEMS – EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENT:

---

“It is not the requirement of the law that a robbed item must be found in the possession of a person before it is established that he participated in the robbery.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CONSPIRACY – PROOF REQUIREMENTS:

---

“It is established principle of law that it is not necessary to establish relationship between conspirators or that the conspirators were seen together.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

COMMON INTENTION – CONSPIRACY PROOF:

---

“What the law requires to succeed in a charge of conspiracy is the common intention to do an illegal act or a legal one through an illegal means.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DEFINITION:

---

“Section 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011 defines confession thus:A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.&” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE – DEFINITION:

---

“Two pieces of evidence are inconsistent when they are in essence mutually exclusive such that if one is true the other must be false because they are essentially contradictory.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

TRUTH TEST – CORROBORATION REQUIREMENT:

---

“The truth test only requires the trial court to look for independent piece(s) of evidence outside the conviction which tends to show that the confession is true.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

VOLUNTARY CONFESSION – SUFFICIENCY:

---

“The confessional statement of the Appellant being voluntarily made and well corroborated is sufficient to support the conviction of the Appellant.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONS – CONVICTION BASIS:

---

“It is the trite principle of law that a confessional statement if believed by a trial court can without more, justify a conviction.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CONSPIRACY – NATURE OF PROOF:

---

“As the offence of conspiracy is seldom capable of direct proof but it is to be inferred from the conduct of the conspirators, sufficient grounds exist upon which the court could rightly infer the existence of conspiracy.”– Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

ARGUMENTS VS FACTS – DISTINCTION:

---

“The above enumerated facts are arguments but not facts.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CORROBORATION OF CONFESSION – SUFFICIENCY:

---

“The trial court did apply the truth test to exhibits A and A1 but found both to be believable and corroborated by other facts sufficiently proven before the court.” – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Penal Code Law of Bauchi State (as applicable to Gombe State)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

---