The Queen V. Effiong Okon Eyo (1962)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TAYLOR JSC

The appellants were four of the six accused persons who stood trial at the Assizes held at Uyo in the Calabar Judicial Division on the following eight counts:-

Count 1:with Riot contrary to S.71 of the Criminal Code. Counts 2, 3, and 4:with attempt to murder contrary to S.320(1) of the Criminal Code.

Counts 5 and 6: with doing grievous harm contrary to 5.335 of the Criminal Code.

Count 7: with doing an act intended to cause grievous harm contrary to S.332(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 8:with serious assault contrary to S. 356(2) of the Criminal Code. The four appellants were found guilty on all the counts and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with one another, whilst the other two accused were found not guilty and discharged.

The facts of the case, put as shortly as possible, were as follows:

On the 9th November, 1961, the Premier of the Eastern Region, a member of the political party known as the N.C.N.C., was due to hold a rally at St. Peter’s School compound, which abuts the Mbierebe Akpawa Road, in Uyo, Calabar, Eastern Region. The first appellant, a member of the opposition, the political party known as the Action Group, has an uncompleted building a few yards off this main road. Before the Premier was due to pass, a police patrol was patrolling this road, and the first appellant with the second appellant and many others were seen in the formers compound armed with various weapons, including guns, matchets, bows and arrows and were seen drinking and singing. Amongst them, too, were women carrying bottles and palm leaves. The first appellant was requested by one of the police Officers on patrol, prosecution witness 4, to disperse the crowd and replied that the law allows him to defend his property. Shortly after further Police detachments arrived, numbering about 175 in all, and the Premier and his campaign (election) team followed in the wake. Various efforts were made by the Police to disperse the crowd, which had obstructed the road with drums and palm branches, but in vain. According to this same witness, when he asked the first appellant to withdraw his man, he refused to do so and said that he would not allow the Police and the Premier’s team to pass. The second appellant was also particularly conspicuous in a uniform, and had been described by the first appellant as the person in charge of operations. The crowd with the first appellant numbered about 500 persons. At a certain stage, the Police baton party was ordered to make an arrest, and the third and fourth appellants were arrested before the firing started. When the Police endeavoured to disperse the crowd with tear gas, they opened fire on the police, resulting in several policemen being injured. The police then opened fire and killed one of the crowd, which had the effect of dispersing the crowd. The first appellant was seen to fire at the Police from the window of his uncompleted house.

The defence set up by the second to fourth appellants was a complete denial of being present at the scene, whilst the first appellant denied organizing the crowd in defence of his property and, further, that although he saw a crowd of women who had volunteered to defend his property, he was not at the scene when the disorder broke out, having left when advised so to do by one of the Police officers.

Chief Moore, Q.C., argued with leave, two additional grounds of appeal with those already contained in the record. They read as follows:-

(1)The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to consider at all or sufficiently the defence of the appellants’ “Defence of Property”, after finding the pleas of Alibi not established.

(2)The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in treating the statements made by the second, third and fourth appellants as evidence given by the three appellants, in that the statement failed to com-ply with the Rules of Evidence requiring evidence by accused persons to be oral evidence.

There is no substance in either of these two grounds, and suffice it to say on the first that apart from the fact that none of the appellants, in their evidence in Court or in their statement to the Police, set up this defence, the learned trial Judge in our view gave this defence a most careful consideration and rejected it. In one portion of the judgment the trial Judge says this:-

Assuming that the first accused was defending his property (which he denied) one would have expected him to station his armed men around his house and oil mill to guard them, and not to block the road. The first accused was asked to order the crowd to surround his premises and oil mill if he in fact wanted to defend them, but he refused. What acts were done by the accused on the day in question to show he was defending his property? None (in view of his denial). If this defence does not avail the first appellant it stands to reason that the property in question being his, it cannot avail the others, more so in view of the statement of the first appellant that he did not engage anyone to defend his property.