CORAM

---

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel,Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu,Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Danjuma,Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

ZULKIFLU ADAMU

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, APPELLATE PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and another were charged with conspiracy, armed robbery and receiving stolen property. The Appellant was charged alone in Count Three for receiving stolen property. The trial court discharged him on conspiracy but convicted him on receiving stolen property, sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment. His co-accused, who was convicted of armed robbery, had successfully appealed and was discharged and acquitted by the Court of Appeal in an earlier judgment.

 

---

HELD

---

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Conviction and sentence set aside.

3. Appellant discharged and acquitted.

4. Since co-accused was acquitted of robbery, Appellant could not be convicted of receiving property from a robbery that was not proven.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court properly relied on Exhibit B (Appellant’s confession) despite procedural and evidential requirements ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved essential ingredients of receiving stolen property under Section 5 of the Robbery and Firearms Act ?

3. Whether the trial court properly evaluated evidence and considered Appellant’s alibi defense ?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY

---

“When a confessional statement is admitted without objection from the maker or his Counsel, the law implies that the maker of the statement agrees with everything in the statement. It also means that the maker made the statement voluntarily and that it is the truth of his role in the crime.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

TIMING OF OBJECTION TO CONFESSION

---

“The appropriate time to object to a statement made by an accused person on the ground of inadmissibility… is at the time when the Prosecution seeks to tender the statement in evidence and not at the appellate Court.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSION – EFFECT

---

“Retracting or resiling from the statement does not render the same inadmissible and the Court can still convict on the statement.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

VERACITY TEST FOR CONFESSIONS

---

“The law enjoins the Court to seek any other evidence however slight, or circumstances which make it probable that the confession is true.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

INCONSISTENCY RULE – APPLICATION

---

“The inconsistency rule applies to witnesses and not to an accused person. The witness is also given an opportunity while giving evidence on oath to explain the inconsistency.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

---

“These ingredients are: 1. That the property in question is stolen property. 2. That the accused person received or retained such property. 3. That he did so dishonestly. 4. That he knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

PROOF OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY – EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL

---

“The count of robbery against the co-accused having failed, the Appellant herein could not have received any stolen property since the subsisting decision of the Court is that there was no robbery proved.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – PROSECUTION’S DUTY

---

“In a criminal trial, the burden is always on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on the accused person to prove his innocence.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

REASONABLE DOUBT – RESOLUTION

---

“When as in this case an essential ingredient of the offence charged has not been proved flowing from a subsisting decision of this Court, then the ensuing doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

STARE DECISIS – BINDING EFFECT

---

“It is rudimentary law that this Court is bound by its previous decisions based on the doctrine of stare decisis.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING

---

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt should be a proof that excludes all reasonable inference or assumption except that which it seeks to support. It must have clarity of proof that is readily consistent with the guilt of the accused person.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

METHODS OF PROVING GUILT

---

“There are three ways or methods of proving the guilt of an accused person, namely:

1. By reliance on a confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made.

2. By circumstantial evidence.

3. By evidence of eyewitnesses.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – PROBATIVE VALUE

---

 “A confessional statement made by an accused person is potent evidence in the hand of a Prosecutor for proving a charge. It is the best and safest evidence on which to convict.” – Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act 2011

2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004

3. Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Yobe State 2020

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

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT