Chungwom Kim V. State (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C 

In a Jos High Court presided over by Emefo, J., the appellant was charged with an offence of culpable homicide punishable with death. The charge as amended read as follows: “That you CHUNGWOM KIM, on or about the 5th day of July, 1981 at Patikko Village did commit culpable homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of CHIBI NYANA by beating him and stabbing him with a knife with the knowledge that his death will be the probable consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 221 of the Penal Code.”

He pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called six witnesses and the appellant testified on his own behalf but called no witness.

There was no eye witness to the incident which led to the death of the deceased. But the prosecution relied heavily on three confessional statements made by the appellant to the police before the trial began and which were tendered as Exhs.A (in Hausa) and A1 (English translation), B (in Hausa) and B1 (English translation), and C (in Hausa) and C1 (English translation). Because of the issues raised on these statements in this appeal, I shall deal with them in greater detail later on. Suffice it to say at this stage that after trial and listening to the addresses of counsel on both sides, the learned trial judge found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death.

Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, (Coram Omololu Thomas, Ndoma-Egba and Adio, J.J.C.A) was dismissed. Hence his further appeal to this Court. One original ground of appeal was filed with the notice of appeal; but with the leave of this Court six additional grounds were filed. From these seven grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ezeobi, formulated the following issues:

“1 (a) Whether the complaint against acts of misdirection by the Court below are valid and substantial.

(b) If so, whether the judgment of the Court below so riddled with fundamental acts of misdirection can be said not to have occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

2. Whether the courts below were right in holding that the alleged confessional statements, Exhibits “A-A1”, “B1- B1” and “C-C1”, on which alone the trial court relied in convicting the appellant were:

(a) recorded in substantial compliance with the law and practice;

(b) properly admitted in evidence; and

(c) properly relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant having regard to its decision that all previous statements of the accused (i.e. before trial) are unreliable.

3. Whether the conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide punishable with death as affirmed by the court below can be supported:

(a) in the absence of oral evidence outside Exhibits “A-A1”. “B-B1” and “C-C1″;

(b) in view, in any event of the defences of right of private self-defence and provocation which arise from the said Exhibit.

4. Whether the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing was observed in the trial court when:

(a) the legal representation was no more than nominal;

(b) the learned trial Judge patently failed in his judgment to maintain the required balance between the prosecution and the appellant.”