Micheal Okaroh V. The State (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. 

This is a further appeal by the accused person, Michael Okaroh, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, coram: Maidama, Jacks and Mukhtar, JJ.C.A. That court had dismissed his appeal against the judgment of Soluade, J., convicting the appellant of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to section 85 read together with section 221 of the Penal Code. The charge before the court of trial was as follows:

“THAT YOU MICHAEL OKAROH, on or about the 15th day of February, 1983 in Jos and within the jurisdiction of this court, carried one Christopher Okaroh (deceased) on your motorcycle to a stop on the Miange Road in Jos where you had arranged with one Tanko Ayankar Ayiku (now at large) to kill the said Christopher Okaroh and in pursuance of the conspiracy the said Tanko Ayankar Ayiku did kill the said Christopher Okaroh and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 85 read together with section 221 of the Penal Code.”

The facts established by evidence called by the prosecution could be summarized briefly. The deceased was an uncle to the appellant, and both hailed from Ogidi in Anambra State, to which town union both of them belonged. The appellant who had been trained as a trader by the deceased demanded from the latter, N6,000.00 with which to commence trading business.

Because of his failure or refusal to give him the sum demanded, their relationship got badly strained, as a result of which the appellant threatened to kill the deceased. The appellant who was brought down from Yola to Jos had also given the sum of N550.00 or N650.00 to the deceased to keep for him. Appellant also demanded this sum of money; otherwise he would kill the deceased. At a certain stage of the strained relationship both the Ogidi Union, Jos Branch, and P.W.3 and P.W.4 intervened.

As a result, the deceased was advised to give the appellant N1,000.00 (which he did) and to refund appellant’s own money. Instead of starting business with the money the appellant went and bought a motorcycle. The members of Ogidi Union also advised them to live apart, and the appellant moved out to Miango Road, Jos. It was also in evidence from P.W.3 and P.W.4 that the appellant several times threatened to kill the deceased.

On the 15th of February 1983, the appellant called at the house of the deceased and carried him on his motorcycle to Miango Road on the pre that he was going to show him (the deceased) the premises which he (the appellant) had found for his business. On their way they had to pass through a long and lonely road. There the appellant hired co-conspirator, Tanko, as prearranged, attacked the deceased with a butcher’s knife and inflicted deep wounds to his neck, skull and chest, as a result of which he died on the spot.

The appellant went and reported the matter to the police who accompanied him to the scene where they found the dead body of the deceased. They searched the scene and found the knife used. Sometime after they had returned to the police station, the appellant, the police and P.W.3, Benjamin Okafor, returned to the scene. Nearby, the appellant showed them where he hid a handbag of the deceased containing some money.

Charged and cautioned, the appellant volunteered two statements. As one of them is the main plank of the appellant’s appeal in this case, I shall the facts later on. After full hearing, the learned trial judge held, inter alia, as follows:

“The conduct of the accused was a deliberate, calculated, cold blood murder; carefully prepared, rehearsed and executed according to plan. I reject his defence outright without any hesitation. Although there are certain flaws in the prosecution case earlier referred to, these do not diminish the weight I attach to their evidence. Having considered the confession together with all the evidence, in my opinion, they are consistent with, and not contradicted or discredited by other evidence. I am satisfied that the accused acted in concert with Tanko, as a result of which the deceased was killed in pursuance of the conspiracy, I find him guilty as charged and convict him accordingly.”

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Mukhtar, J.CA., with whose judgment Maidama and Jacks, J. J. C. A., concurred, dismissed the appeal; hence this further appeal.

Learned counsel on both sides filed their respective briefs of argument. I believe the issues in the appeal are as formulated by the learned senior advocate for the appellant, Mr. Akinrele, thus:

“(a) With regards to the records, was the confessional statement of the appellant ever admitted as an exhibit or was it more likely that the learned trial Judge after the adjournment believed that it was already an exhibit as opposed to something tendered for identification

(b) If the learned trial Judge was in error had the appellant the opportunity of a challenge for the purpose of a ‘trial within a trial’ as to the voluntariness of his statement