The State V. Idapu Emine & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAWU, J.S.C.

The respondents herein and another person were jointly charged under S.319(1) before the High Court of Rivers State sitting at Degema with the murder of the Amadabo of Obonoma Chief Solomon Oponogina. The particulars of the charge alleged that “on or about the 12th day of September, 1987 at Orupiri Creek in Obonoma Town in Degema Judicial Division murdered Solomon Obonogina”. They pleaded not guilty to the charge.

At the trial, the prosecution called a number of witnesses to testify in support of the charge. All the accused persons testified in their defence and called two additional witnesses. The prosecution’s case was based substantially on the evidence of P.W.1 – Moses Solomon, who claimed to be an eye witness of the event that led to the death of the deceased. He testified in part at the trial as follows:

“I know the accused persons. They are Obonoma people. On the 12th September,1987 I was fishing in Orupiri creek at about 7.30 a.m. At that time I was making a trap hook in the swamp. I then heard a voice “Afete Afete” in Kalabari meaning in English Language “I am dying, I am dying” I moved nearer the voice. I then saw 7 people handle one man inside a canoe along the swamp. Two of the seven people held the neck of the man they were handling. Two others held one hand each of the man they were handling. Two others held the foot of the man, one leg each, the 7th held the penis. I know the 7 people. If I see them I will recognise them. They are the accused persons in dock. The two people who held the neck broke the neck of their victim. Those who held the hands of the victim broke the hands and those two who held the legs, broke the legs. The 7th who held the penis drew the penis. The accused then threw the man inside the water. I know the man they handled, and threw into the water. I do not know his name but he was Amadabo of Obonoma. When accused saw that the man could not get out of the water, they moved away. I then left the place from where I saw the accused and went back to Obonoma Town and got there at 9.0’clock in the morning. I was afraid to tell anybody what I saw. I later saw a man who is not a native of Obonoma and told him what I saw. The man showed me a picture which identified him as a policeman. The policeman then brought me here at Degema Police Station. I made statement to the Police.”At the end of the trial and after the addresses of both counsel, the learned trial Judge reviewed the evidence adduced and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established their case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore convicted them as charged and sentenced them to death.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal on a number of grounds. Having given a very careful consideration to all the issues raised in that appeal, the Court of Appeal. In the lead judgment of that Court delivered by Onu, J.C.A. on the 14th day of June, 1991 with which Jacks, J.C.A. and Omosun, J.C.A. (as he then was) agreed, allowed the appeal, entered a verdict of not guilty in favour of all the respondents and acquitted and discharged all of them. This appeal is from that decision.

Four grounds of appeal were filed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal as follows:-

“Grounds of Appeal

(i) The judgment of the Court of Appeal was unwarranted, unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence before it as per record.

Particulars of error

The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted the respondents when it came to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt more particularly that the evidence of P.W.1 the sole eye witness to the murder was doubtful and unreliable.

(ii) The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the evidence of P.W.1 is not capable of belief thereby failed to apply the principles laid down in the case of Bayo Adelumola v. The State (1988) 3 SCNJ (Pt.1) Pp.74-75; (1988) 1 N.W.L.R, (Pt. 73) 683.

Particulars of error

The Court of Appeal failed to belief (sic) the evidence P.W.1 which was rightly believed by the Court below when the said P.W.1 ‘s evidence was not contradicted by the defence.

(iii) The Court of Appeal erred in law when it interfered with the findings of the Court below where these findings were reasonably substantiated.