Godwin Chukwuma V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BA’ABA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Sokoto in suit No. FHC/S/20C/2004 delivered on the 21st day of September, 2004, in which the court convicted and sentenced the appellant to a term of 15 years imprisonment under section 10H of the NDLEA (Amendment) Decree No.15 of 1992.

The appellant was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Sokoto, charged with an offence under section 10H of the NDLEA (Amendment) Decree No. 15 of 1992 as follows:

”That you Godwin Chukwuma (a.k.a. Goddy) male, 36 years of age of Mabera Area of Sokoto, on or about 22nd March, 2004 at Hajiya Halima Area, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and without lawful authority had in your possession 305 kilograms of cannabis sativa otherwise known as Indian hemp, a narcotic drug similar to cocaine and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10H of the NDLEA (Amendment) Decree No.15 of 1992.”

After the charge was read and explained to the accused person/appellant who appeared to have understood the charge satisfactorily and pleaded as follows:

“Accused: I understood the charge as read and explained to me and the allegation is not true. I am not guilty.”

The respondent, in an attempt to prove its case against the appellant as the accused called a total number of five witnesses and tendered exhibits A 1- 13, B, C, D, E – E2, in evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, while the appellant testified on his own behalf but called no other witness.

The facts of the case include the followings: The appellant was arrested by officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agents (NDLEA) on the 22nd day of March, 2004, at Hajiya Halima Area, Sokoto, in Sokoto State. The case for the prosecution is as stated by the five witnesses who testified that the accused was arrested for being in possession of substance suspected to be Indian hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to cocaine, heroin or LSD without lawful authority. Furthermore, that the appellant was taken to the NDLEA office along side the recovered substance and in his presence it was field tested using United Nations testing kits and it proved positive for cannabis saliva with a gross weight of 305 kilograms. That, other scientific analysis was conducted on the recovered substance at the laboratory and it proved positive for cannabis sativa otherwise known as Indian hemp. The appellant was found to have contravened the provisions of section 10H. NDLEA (Amendment) Decree No.15 of 1992. Thereafter, the appellant made an extra-judicial statement under caution at the NDLEA office, Sokoto on the 22nd day of March, 2004.

The appellant was arraigned before the Federal High Court Sokoto, on the 30th day of March, 2004 for the offence of knowingly being in possession of 305 kilograms of cannabis sativa, otherwise known as Indian hemp contrary to and punishable under section 10H.of the NDLEA (Amendment) Decree NO.15 of 1992 to which he pleaded not guilty. The appellant engaged the services of counsel to conduct his defence, the counsel actively participated in the trial as shown at pages 24 – 30 and 32 – 47 of the printed record but subsequently abandoned the case without complying with the procedure of applying to the court to withdraw.

In the course of trial, 5 prosecution witnesses testified and exhibits A1 – 13, B, C, D, E – E2 were tendered by the prosecutor in evidence. The appellant did not lead evidence to rebut or contradict the testimonies of the prosecution Witnesses.

After reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence of the appellant as well as taking into consideration the exhibits tendered by the prosecution in support of its case, the learned trial Judge, held:

“In the instant case the totality of evidence leaves this court in no doubt (1) that the substance in question was immediately tested upon arrest and recovery in the presence of witnesses and the accused person and the substance proved positive for cannabis sativa i.e. (Indian hemp) so also exhibit “E” expert analysis of the drug.

(2) The substance was found and recovered from the possession of the accused person immediately upon arrest with no lapse of time to create doubt. (3) Accused person knew that he had the substance in question in his possession.”

Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the appellant by his notice of appeal dated and filed on 13/10/2004, containing six grounds of appeal at pages 71 – 75 of the printed record. The grounds of appeal and their particulars are hereby reproduced below as follows: