Abubakar Ibrahim V. The State (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C.

On 2nd January, 1983, one Akinola Green, the P.W.1 was driving his car along Badagry Expressway. He got to a spot where he saw three men in army uniform, who stopped him and asked for a lift to a spot called Mile 2.

As the three men forcibly entered the vehicle and looking hostile, he told them he was not going to Mile 2. One of the men then dipped his hand in his (P.W.1’s) pocket and removed the money he had there. The two others demanded more money and he told them he had no more money on him.

They dragged him out of the vehicle and beat him telling him he was hiding his money somewhere. They ordered him back into his vehicle and one of them took control of the vehicle. They then drove towards Badagry up to when they got to a dark spot near Trade Fair Complex where they stopped, beat him again after dragging him out of his vehicle.

They asked him to choose between his life and his vehicle; he chose the former. After beating him more with an horse-whip, they pushed him into a ditch and drove away in his vehicle.

A passer-by gave him a lift to the Police Post at Satellite Town where he reported the incident. After reporting to the Police the P.W.1 was in the car of the helper along the same Badagry Expressway between the two gates to Satellite Town when he found his vehicle seemingly abandoned with its parking lights on. There were at that moment some policemen on patrol who were alerted. The car was not locked and the policemen decided to comb around for the uniformed men. As they were returning to the vehicle the three uniformed men were seen going towards the same vehicle. The police intercepted them, two of them escaped but the appellant was the one arrested. This is the evidence of the prosecution. The appellant denied any attack on P.W.1 and claimed total ignorance of the robbery.

The appellant’s story is that he went to visit his brother and father at Ikeja and was at Mile 2 waiting for transport to take him to Ojo Army Cantonment when police arrested him as a robber. He never gave the address of his brother at Ikeja, nor of his father nor even their names. His claim was that he left Ikeja at 6.30 p.m. and never got to Mile 2 before 10.30 p.m. the time he alleged he was arrested. In his voluntary statement to the police and in his sworn evidence at trial Court, the appellant gave no details as to the address he went to at Ikeja or the names of his father and brother he visited there. He however took pains to reveal he was a soldier with Pay and Records and showed the police his place of work and his superior officer, a major. Trial Court disbelieved the appellant’s story and found the case for the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus convicted him for armed robbery and sentenced him to death.

He appealed to Court of Appeal which upheld the trial Court’s decision; thus the appeal to this Court.

The grounds of appeal concern identification, alibi and alleged contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inadverted to by the trial Court and overlooked by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant formulated the following issues for determination in furtherance of the grounds of appeal.

“ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether or not the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the trial court’s finding that an identification parade was unnecessary in this case.
2. Was the appellant’s conviction and sentence rightly upheld when his defence of alibi was not investigated by the Police
3. Was the appellant’s conviction rightly upheld in the face of contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
4. Was it right to affirm the appellant’s conviction when the trial court had first considered the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the appellant before proceeding to consider the appellant’s defence
5. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in not considering the various defences and issues raised by the appellant having regards to the principles enunciated in Opayemi v. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) 101.”

Upon the facts of this case, would it be necessary to have an identification parade The complainant, P.W.1, after lodging his complaint about the three men in army uniform who stopped him and took over the driving of his vehicle from him forcibly, explained how he was a virtual kidnap victim and how he was beaten up by the three men. He explained further how he found his car abandoned with the sidelamps on by the road side and how an ambush by the police almost caught the three men. It is also clear on evidence how the appellant was arrested and his two companions escaped. In a circumstance as in this case, where the accused person was caught in trying to escape during the commission of the offence and the victim of the crime was present and positively identified the accused person, there will be no need for the formality of holding an identification parade.

The offence of robbery had been committed and it would seem the appellant and his two companions left the vehicle to attend to something else and were returning to the vehicle when they were intercepted by the police in the presence of P.W.1, the victim of the robbery. Thus not in all cases is identification parade necessary; and once the victim has immediately after the commission of the offence seen the accused or arrests him or joins in any other way in identifying him, it will be superfluous to line people up for identification. (See Okosi v. State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 642; Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455).

In the instant case, the appellant was positively identified as one of the three men in army uniform who attacked him and the appellant was actually apprehended while his companions escaped.As for contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ evidence, the principles governing this have always been well explained. If contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution goes to the root of the case, that is to say, the substance of the case, as to raise doubt in the mind of the Court, the Court should not convict. It is clear that if there is contradiction in evidence as to a material fact, that then goes to the root of the prosecution’s case as to raise doubt the benefit of which must be given to the accused person (Ejigbadero v. State (1978) 9 & 10 S.C. 81; Nwosisi v. State (1976) 6 S.C. 109).