Abdulkarim Mohammed v. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in its Jos Judicial Division and delivered on the 17th of March, 2013 in appeal No. CA/J/183C/2011.

The judgment upheld the decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Jos contained in a judgment delivered in charge No. FHC/J/34C/2010 on the 16th of December, 2010 convicting the appellant and sentencing him to a term of years of imprisonment on three counts of offences.

The appellant was one of fifteen persons arraigned before the Federal High Court on three count of offences, namely: conspiracy to commit terrorists acts within Jos and its environs, illegal possession of locally made guns, totaling seven in number, without a valid license and committing terrorists acts in Kadunu Village in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State while armed with dangerous weapons such as machetes, knives, bows and arrows, slings and axes during which they put to danger the residents of the village and thereby caused the death of several persons, serious injuries to several persons, damage to public and private properties and to natural resources. The appellant was the fifth accused person and he was named in all the three counts and he pleaded Not Guilty to the three counts.

In proof of the charge against the appellant and his co-accused persons, the respondent called five witnesses and tendered six locally made guns, one long knife and one short knife, four bows, thirteen arrows, three axes and one machete, amongst other items, along with the extra judicial statements of the appellant and his co-accused as exhibits.

The appellant and his co-accused persons called only one witness in their defence and the witness described himself as their Community Leader. The appellant and his co-accused persons did not testify in their respective defence.

At the conclusion of trial, counsel to the parties filed final addresses of arguments and trial court delivered judgment wherein it found that the respondent led sufficient cogent and credible evidence to prove the three counts of offences against the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant on the three counts and sentenced him to two years imprisonment, twelve months imprisonment and ten years imprisonment thereon respectively, without an option of fine.

The appellant was unhappy with his conviction and sentence and he caused his counsel to file an appeal against it to the lower court and his grievances were concretized in an amended notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal.

Counsel to the appellant was also counsel to all his co-accused persons in the trial court and he similarly filed an amended notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal on behalf of twelve of the co-accused persons. Counsel thereafter filed only one brief of arguments of his contentions in respect of the appeals of the appellant and the twelve co-accused persons. From the eight grounds of appeal, counsel to the appellant distilled two issues for the determination of the lower court in all the thirteen appeals and these were:

(i) Whether the respondent proved its case for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and for committing terrorist acts against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; and

(ii) Whether the respondent proved its case for illegal possession of firearms against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The lower court heard the appeal on the merits and delivered a judgment wherein it reappraised the evidence led by the respondent and the appellant and his co-accused persons before the trial court vis-a-vis the findings and conclusions made by the trial court in convicting the appellant and his co-accused persons. The lower court found that the findings and conclusions were adequately and satisfactorily supported by the evidence and were not perverse and it upheld the findings made and the conclusions reached by the trial court and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and of his co-accused persons.

At this point, the appellant and his co-accused persons went their separate ways and the appellant being again dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, caused his counsel to file a further amended notice of appeal dated the 5th of March, 2024 on the 6th of March, 2024 against it to this court and the notice of appeal was deemed properly filed by this court on the 14th of November, 2024.

In arguing the appeal, counsel to the appellant relied on a further amended brief of arguments dated the 5th of March, 2024, filed on 6th of March, 2024 and deemed properly filed by this court on the 14th of November, 2024. The responded reacted by filing an amended brief of arguments dated the 5th of November, 2024 on the same date and it was deemed properly filed on the 14th of November, 2024. At the hearing of the appeal, counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments contained in their respective briefs of arguments.