The State V. Abdulmalik Abiodun & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal is against the judgment of the Kwara State High Court presided over by M. Abdulm Gafar, J, delivered on 30th September, 2014, in which the trial Court discharged and acquitted the respondents as accused persons on the charges of conspiracy, unlawful possession of firearms and armed robbery.

The background facts are that the respondents were arraigned before the trial Court on a three count charge of conspiracy, armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms contrary to Sections 6(6) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, 2004. The respondents were alleged to have robbed the PW3, Mayodele Merayesa of his Toyota Camry (Muscle) car among other valuables at gun point on or about the 5th day of May, 2013 along Fate Road, GRA Ilorin.

At the trial, a gun allegedly used for the operation was tendered as Exhibit P1 and the respondents’ extrajudicial statements were admitted in evidence without objection as Exhibits P2 and P3 respectively. The respondents testified in their defence and called no witness while the appellant as the prosecution called three witnesses.

1

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court and filed its four grounds of appeal from which three issues were distilled for the determination of the appeal.

The three issues identified by the appellant for the determination of the appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have concluded that there was need for a formal identification parade in the peculiar circumstance of this case. (relating to Ground 3)
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have concluded that the prosecution did not sustain the offences of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery against the two respondents beyond reasonable doubt. ( this relates to Grounds 2 and 4)
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that the prosecution was unable to sustain the charge of illegal possession of firearms against the respondents.

The respondents on their part also formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal. They are:

1. Whether the learned trial judge was not right to have concluded that no proper identification was conducted to sustain the allegation of armed robbery against

2

the Respondents (Ground 3)

2. Whether the learned trial judge was not right to have concluded that the prosecution did not sustain the offences of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery against the two respondents beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds 2 and 4)
3. Whether the learned trial judge was not right in his conclusion that the prosecution was unable to prove the essential ingredients of illegal possession of firearms against the Respondents. (Ground 1)

In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the appellant Jimoh Adebimpe, Director of Public Prosecution, (DPP) Kwara State Ministry of Justice appearing with A.A. Daibu Esq., Assistant Chief State Counsel and Oluwalana Michael (Mrs.) State Counsel 1, adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 15/06/16 as his argument in this appeal, in urging us to allow the appeal and convict the respondents.

In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that the trial Court rightly found that PW3 was robbed of his vehicle and other valuable items and it was the evidence of the PW3 that connected the respondents to the incident. The learned Director of Public Prosecution faulted the trial

3

Court’s conclusion that the identification of the respondents by the PW3 needed to be formal. It was submitted that the robbery incident took place in the morning, at about 9.30 a.m. It was made out that there was a long encounter between the PW3 and his assailants which, it was argued gave the victim enough time to mark the faces of his assailants who were not masked. It was argued that Exhibits P2 and P3, the statements of the respondents corroborated the evidence of the PW3. Further, that the respondents were identified on 24/6/13, while the incident took place on 5/5/13 which was argued to be a short interval. See, ADAMU VS. THE STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 187) 530 at 537-538. It was submitted that no formal identification parade was required in the present circumstance of this case. See, also ABDULLAHI VS. THE STATE (2005) ALL FWLR PT. 263, 698.