Joseph Amoshima V. The State (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment delivered on 19/7/2005 by the High Court of Niger State, Minna Judicial Division (Coram Hon. Justice Amina A. Wambai). The Appellant and four others were charged with the offences of conspiracy to commit the offence of armed robbery; and armed robbery; respectively, under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree No. 5 of 1984. The learned trial Judge in the judgment being appealed against sentenced the Appellant and two others to death after finding each of them guilty of the offences preferred against them. The criminal proceeding against the Appellant and others tried along with him was initiated by the Attorney-General of Niger State through one of the officers in his Department. The Appellant was arrested several weeks after the occurrence of the crime he was charged with and though he made a confessional statement to the police, he retracted the same during trial.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence appealed to this Court by a Notice of Appeal filed on 9/8/2005. The said Notice of Appeal contained nine grounds. This Court on the 6th of November, 2006, granted the Appellant orders to amend his Notice of Appeal and deeming the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 20th October, 2006 already filed and served, to have been properly filed and served. The Amended Notice of Appeal contains eight grounds of appeal and the said grounds without their particulars read thus: –

“GROUND 1

The learned trial court erred in law when it convicted the Appellant for conspiracy and Armed Robbery punishable with death without considering the fact that the Appellant was never identified by any of the prosecution witnesses.

GROUND 2

The Hon. Trial court erred in law when in contravention of Section 1 (3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act; it sentenced the Appellant to death by hanging stating that it has no discretion on terms of sentence.

GROUND 3

The Hon. Trial court erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction in the trial of the appellant under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act when the same was not properly brought before it.

GROUND 4

The learned trial Court erred in law when it heavily relied on the retracted confessional statement of the Appellant to convict and sentence the Appellant.

GROUND 5

The learned trial court erred in law when it did not test the truthfulness of the purported confessional statement of the Appellant before relying solely on it to convict the Appellant.

GROUND 6