Kehinde Olugbemi v. The State (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

WANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The facts from the side of the respondent are that the appellant sometime in June, 2013, while under the employment of the Ogun State Judiciary as Chief Bailiff in the Abeokuta Judicial Division sold a compressor, a property of the court and corruptly benefitted N3,100,000.00 (Three million, one hundred naira only).

After the matter was reported to the police, the appellant was arrested by the police, wherein he confessed where he sold the compressor. With his assistance, the compressor was recovered from Abia State back to the Ogun State High Court premises.

The appellant was subsequently arraigned and tried. After the trial, he was found guilty of the two count charges and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the lower court, which affirmed his conviction and sentence, hence this appeal.

He has before this court distilled 5 issues for determination:

1. Was the court below not wrong in law in affirming the conviction of the appellant on counts that are unconstitutional and therefore a nullity?
2. Was the court below not wrong in law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal when the ingredients of the offences of official corruption and stealing were not established against the appellant?
3. Was the court below not wrong in law in going outside the provisions of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State in finding the definition of ‘public service’ which term is an essential ingredient of count 1 of the information filed against the appellant?
4. Was the court below not wrong in law in affirming the admissibility of appellant’s confessional statements (Exhibits 2 and 2A) and his conviction based on the said exhibits?
5. Was the court below not wrong in law when it held that the trial court was right in law in allowing the respondent to re-open its case after the closure of the appellant’s defence?

The respondent on the other hand distilled these issues for determination:

1. Whether counts 1 and 2 of the charge against the appellant are unconstitutional and nullities having regards to the facts of this case?
2. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, the respondent proved the charge of official corruption and stealing against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with section 135 of the Evidence Act, No. 18 of 2011 ?
3. Whether the court below was wrong in going outside the provisions of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State in finding the definition of ‘public service’?
4. Whether the lower court was not right in law in affirming the admissibility of the appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibits 2 and 2A) and his conviction based on the said exhibits?
5. Whether the court below was not right in law when it held that the trial court was right in law in allowing the respondent to re-open its case after the closure of the appellant’s defence?

The appeal can be better determined by a lone issue appositely couched thus:

“Whether by the circumstances and facts of the trial of the appellant and by his confessional statement, the lower court was not wrong to hold that the respondent proved the charge of official corruption and stealing against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

Issue for determination:

Whether by the circumstances and facts of the trial of the appellant and by his confessional statement, the lower court was not wrong to hold that the respondent proved the charge of official corruption and stealing against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

It is the submission of the learned counsel to the appellant that the co-existence of counts one and two on corrupt benefit and official corruption on same compressor are unconstitutional and a nullity. He cited in support Simon Edibo v. The State (2007) 42 WRN 153; (2007) LPELR- 1012(SC) 32.

That by the provisions of sections 98(1) and 383 of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State on official corruption and stealing respectively, it was wrong for the lower court to dismiss the appellant’s appeal when the ingredients of the said offences were not proved. Similarly, he submitted that it was wrong for the court below to go outside the provision of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State in finding the definition of ‘public service’.

Furthermore, it was submitted that it was wrong for the lower court to admit the confessional statement of the appellant obtained under oppression and torture. He relied on The State v. Olashewu (2011) LPELR-8252 (SC) 25 – 26. Finally, he submitted that it was wrong for the lower court to affirm that the respondent was not wrong to re-open its case after the Appellant’s defence. He cited in support Sunday Ndidi v. The State (2007) 41 WRN 1; (2007) LPELR-1970 (SC). He prayed this Court to allow the appeal.

The learned counsel to the respondent replied that the co-existence of counts one and two on corrupt benefit and official corruption on same compressor is sufficient if the facts provide the needed particulars of the offence. He relied on Kolo v. COP (2019) 22 WRN 1; (2017) LPELR-42577 (SC). He added that the appellant, who was ably represented by counsel did not object to the contents or body or defect of the charge when it was read to him.