Ikenna Obi v. The State (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

Three defendants, namely: Anene Maduka, Ikenna Obi and Osadebe Ezeh, were arraigned before the High Court of Anambra State, holden at Ihiala, whereby in an amended information they were charged with the offence of armed robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2004.

At the conclusion of their trial, the learned trial Judge Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo, delivered a reserved judgment on the 6th day of November, 2017 wherein the appellant (Ikenna Obi) and Osadebe Nzeh were convicted of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced to death by hanging or by firing squad.

The appellant was not satisfied with the decision of the trial court and he lodged an appeal identified as appeal No. CA/AW/62C/2018, which was unanimously dismissed by the lower court (Coram: Nwosu- Iheme, JCA (now JSC), Akeju, JCA and Mahmoud, JCA) on the 16th day of March, 2021. This appeal is against the said judgment of the lower court.

In the appellant’s brief, settled by C.P. Oguchienti, Esq., a lone issue was isolated for determination as follows:

“Whether from the totality of evidence at the trial court, the Court of Appeal was not in error in upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence of armed robbery, when the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by law. (Ground 1, 2 and 3)”

Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje (Honourable Attorney-General of Anambra State), who settled the respondent’s brief, adopted the issue as formulated by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Dibie v. State (2008) 3 WRN 1 and submitted that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a robbery, that the robbery was an armed robbery and that the defendant was one of the armed robbers.

Counsel contended that the evidence of the only eyewitness – PW1 raised reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant and that the evidence “was made all the more disturbing by the lack of corroborating evidence by the prosecution to bolster the testimony of PW1, which ordinarily lacked credibility”.

The appellant’s learned counsel argued that the evidence of PW1 fell short of the standard of proof required by law for the following reasons:

“(i) PW1 failed to state where the alleged armed robbery incident took place; 

(ii) that the prosecution failed to tender in evidence a “Police Investigation Report” and this raised a presumption that the prosecution was withholding evidence as provided by section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011;

(iii) the gun allegedly used was not tendered in evidence, “probably because none was recovered”; and

(iv) that “the evidence of PW1 placed side by side with the combined evidence of DW2 and DW3 casts a very serious doubt on the allegations levelled against each of the accused persons.”