James Simon V. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

The appellant, and two others namely Joel Adamu and Ibrahim Musa were arraigned before Talba J, of an Abuja High Court charged with conspiracy to commit armed Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Section 5 and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms Special Provisions Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

The appellant and the other two accused persons denied both counts. This is an appeal by the 1st accused person. At the trial, the prosecution fielded three witnesses and tendered two statements while the appellant testified in his defence. He did not call any witness. After hearing and evaluation of evidence the learned trial judge convicted the appellant and the other two accused persons on both counts and sentenced them to death.

Dissatisfied with both his conviction and sentence, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. This appeal is against that judgment.

In accordance with the Rules of this Court, the appellant and respondent filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The

1

appellant identified two issues for determination, namely,

1. Whether the failure of the respondent to call as witnesses the victims of the robbery and tender the items allegedly recovered from the appellant was not fatal to its case.

2 Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction of the appellant having regard to the evidence before the Court.

For the respondent, two issues were also postulated to wit;

1. Whether there was a miscarriage of justice in convicting the appellant in spite of the respondents failure to call all those listed in the proof of evidence as witnesses and tender the recovered stolen items in evidence.
2. Whether from the evidence adduced, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

A close look at the two sets of issues shows clearly that learned counsel for the parties appear to be ad idem on the issues. They ask the same question. I shall accordingly rely on the appellant’s issues in considering this appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal on 3rd November 2016, learned counsel for the

2

appellant, Mr. A. Saiki adopted the appellant’s brief and urged this Court to allow the appeal while learned Counsel for the respondent, Miss A. Egele adopted the respondents amended brief and urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the concurrent decisions of both Courts below.

THE FACTS ARE THESE