State v. Aliyu (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered by their Lordships; Abubakar Datti Yahaya (JCA), Peter Olabisi Ige (JCA) and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim (JCA) (as he then was) on the 29th of March, 2017 wherein the Court below allowed the Respondent’s appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence of death by hanging meted down to the Respondent by the trial Court.

The facts which led to this appeal are as follows:
The Respondent was charged before the High Court of Niger State on a one count charge of armed robbery contrary to and punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special provisions) Act.

The case of the prosecution is that on or about the 30th day of March, 2015 between the 2100hrs and 2130hrs, one Jibrin Tanko – P.W.1 and his younger brother Sani Yusuf P.W.2 while on their way back from Yidna village on a red motorcycle, saw two people standing by the left-hand side of the road holding cutlass and sticks. On getting closer to them, one of the men (wearing a coat and a black hat) stepped forward and blocked the way of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

P.W.2 who was the person riding the motorcycle flashed the headlight of the motorcycle at them. P.W.1 and P.W.2 immediately recognized and identified the Respondent whom they had known for over fifteen (15) years. P.W.1 in reflex called out the Respondent’s name, “Gbangbaya” who was the first to attack P.W.1 who was at the backseat of the motorcycle.

The assailant struck P.W.2 with the cutlass three times. The cutlass could not penetrate the body of P.W.2, thereafter both victims fell from the motorcycle after which they (P.W.1 and P.W.2) ran away leaving the motorcycle to “Gbangbaya” and the 2nd assailant whom they could not identify while the robbers made away with the said motorcycle.

After the incident, P.W.1 and P.W.2 returned back to Yidna, went straight to the Respondent’s house but according to Sani, his elder brother he was absent from home at the time. The victims reported the matter to the village head and later to the Police. After investigation, the Police charged the Respondent.
​
The prosecution called five witnesses and tendered Exhibits A and B the extra-judicial statements of the Respondent at the Divisional Police Station Paiko and the one made at the State CID Minna. The Respondent testified at the trial Court for himself as D.W.1.

In its judgment, the trial Court held that it was satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case of armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special provisions) Act against the Respondent and convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja challenging his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal in its judgment allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. The Court consequently acquitted and discharged the Respondent.

Displeased by the decision of the Court below, the Appellant appealed to this Court by an amended Notice of Appeal deemed filed on 22/9/22.

The Appellant’s counsel raised two issues for determination, to wit:

1. Whether considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution’s witnesses, the charge of armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (special provisions) Act ​

was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Respondent to sustain the conviction? (Distilled from grounds 1,2,3,5 and 6).

2. Whether the inconsistency rule applies to accused persons where there are discrepancies or contradictions in their confessional statements and their testimony in Court. (Distilled from ground 4).
   ​
   On the other hand, the Respondent’s counsel in the brief settled by K. O. Obamogie, Esq., formulated two issues for determination, thus:
3. Whether the Court below was not right in discharging and acquitting the respondent in the face of irreconcilable contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence and identification of the accused (respondent), thus holding that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was not right in its decision that there is nothing to show that when PW3 recorded the statement in English language, when he was reading it out to the Appellant (Respondent) he was doing so in Hausa language.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is the law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt which presupposes that the prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence charged. Counsel cited Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and Ajayi v. State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) pg. 589.

Learned counsel for the Appellant gave details of how the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence and submitted that there is no doubt all the ingredients of the offence were proved as charged and that the trial Court was right to have convicted the Respondent and sentenced him accordingly. Counsel argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who identified the Respondent at the scene of crime was uncontroverted, coupled with the Appellant’s confessional statement was enough to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.