Idris Rabiu V. The State (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The appellant and one Awalu Garba were charged and convicted of the offences of conspiracy and rape contrary to sections 97 and 283 of the Penal Code.

Brief facts of the case are that on the 1st day of September 1996, at Bida, one Idris Rabiu (the appellant) conspired with one Awalu Garba to have and indeed had carnal knowledge of Mama Abdul-Rahman an eleven-year-old girl, forcefully. It was on this basis that the prosecutrix father reported to ‘A’ Division Police Station, Bida.

The prosecutrix was taken to the General Hospital, Bida because she was bleeding and medical report to that effect was obtained indicating that she bled as a result of the vaginal rupture she suffered due to forceful penetration.

Upon receipt of the case diary, the appellant and one other were prosecuted under sections 97 and 283 of the Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced to term of imprisonment.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of High Court of justice, Minna delivered by Honourable justice, Jibrin N. Ndajiwo the Chief Judge of Niger State, the appellant has appealed to this Honourable Court upon grounds set out in his notice of appeal filed on the 20th day of January, 2004.

The appellant by his notice of appeal has filed 5 grounds of appeal before this Honourable Court, challenging the decision of the trial court.

Parties in this court complied with our rules by filing and exchanging briefs of arguments.

In the appellant’s brief, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Machukwu-Ume, formulated the following issues for determination, thus –

1. Whether there was evidence before the court to support the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for an offence of rape?
2. Whether the trial court was right to have convicted the appellant solely on his plea of guilty to an offence of rape without calling on prosecution to prove its case?
3. Whether it could be said that the appellant had a fair hearing considering the manner of his conviction?
4. Whether the transfer of the appellant’s trial from Bida where the offence was committed and where he resides to Minna did not occasion a miscarriage of justice?
5. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the sentence of the appellant was not manifestly excessive?”

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Majidadi, adopted the issues for determination formulated by the appellant.

In his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant, argued in respect of issue No.1 that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove its case and it was wrong for the trial court to have convicted the appellant. The prosecution was required by law to prove such a serious offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was made to section 138 of the Evidence Act. All the ingredients of the offence must have been proved to secure a conviction. Ogunbayo v. The State (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.789) 76 at 79 referred. Learned counsel submitted that under no circumstances is the prosecution relieved of the statutory burden of proving every ingredient in the offence of rape. State v. Anolue (1983) 1 NCR 71, Jegede v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 264 at 267 were cited in support.

On issue No.2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a plea of guilt cannot be conclusive evidence of guilt in law and the court cannot convict solely on that without meeting certain statutory and judicially stipulated conditions. Before an accused can be convicted on a plea of guilty, it must be established that he has admitted all the facts on which his charge is founded as well as guilt in respect of them. The cases of Onuoha v. Police (1956) NRNLR 96; Ojetola v. C.O.P (1972) CCHCJ 29; Osie Tutu v. The State (1965) GLR 593; Akanbi v. C.O.P (1993) 1 NCR 266 at 269. Failure by the trial court to comply therewith will render the conviction a nullity. The plea of guilty, it is argued, was not genuine as the appellant did not understand his situation, his rights and the consequences of the plea and was coerced to making the plea.

It was submitted for the appellant under issue No.3 that the non-representation of the appellant by a legal counsel in such offence is a denial of fair hearing. Ajile v. State (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt.619) 503 at 505 cited in support. Further, serious offences such as rape should not be tried summarily. R. v. Cox (1968) 1 WLR (1950) 53 CAR 66 and R. v. Pitson (1972) 56 CAR 391. Doing so, argued further by learned counsel, would deprive the applicant his constitutional guaranteed right to be legally represented. The learned trial Judge adopted a summary trial procedure in a capital offence such as rape when there is no such provision under the law. The case of Tsaku v. State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 516 at 519 referred to.

Issue No.4 raises the issue of transfer of appellant’s trial from untold hardship on the appellant. It forestalled every arrangement made by the appellant to be legally represented and it affected the right of the appellant to a fair hearing.