Adeniyi Adekoya Vs The State (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MARY UKAEGO-ODILI, JSC

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Judicial Division delivered on the 18th day of November, 2010 wherein their Lordships dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed his conviction and sentence to death for the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, contrary to section 5 (b) and 1 (2) (a) of the robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 as amended by the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments, etc) Act 1999.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment has appealed against same by his Notice of Appeal dated 10th day of December 2010 and filed on the 11th day of December, 2010 on three grounds.

A background to this appeal is as follows:-

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the two count charge and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called a total of five witnesses while the appellant called two witnesses. Exhibits were tendered and admitted in evidence.

The prosecutions witnesses evidence is to the effect that on the 8th day of November, 1999 at about 8 pm, the appellant and one other person boarded PW1s motorcycle and on their way, the appellant and his co-passenger attacked PW1 and made away with PW1s motorcycle, money and clothes. That the incident was reported to the Police. That the following day, PW3 informed them that some motorcycle mirrors were brought to him in his shop for him to buy. That on getting to PW3s shop, PW1 saw those that attacked him and robbed him whereby the appellant was arrested and taken to the Police Station. That before reporting the matter to the Police, they visited the scene of the crime and recovered some money and a knife.

PW4 as one of the investigating Police Officers in the matter testified that he visited the scene of the crime and recovered PW1s identification Shirt, a red pullover and the registration mark of PW1s motorcycle.

The defence is to the effect that the Appellant knew nothing about the crime that he came to be in possession of the two side mirrors when his alleged partner in crime came to him to help him sell the two side mirrors and indeed, to act as an interpreter between him and the buyer, the seller being an Ibo boy who did not understand Yoruba language which the buyer speaks.

On the 26/1/12 date of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant adopted their Brief of Argument filed on 16/3/2011 and settled by Adewunmi Ogunsanya Esq. In the Brief were crafted two issues for determination which are as follows:-

Whether having regard to the facts in this case, Exhibit ‘E’ qualifies as a confessional statement to warrant the conviction and sentence of the Appellant as was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Whether having regard to the evidence in this case, the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision that the prosecution proved the offences

In the Respondents Brief settled by Akin Osinbajo, the Honourable Attorney General of Ogun State and which Brief was filed on 12/5/2011, respondent adopted the issues as couched by the Appellant.

The two issues are best taken together. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution during trial tendered the Appellants alleged extra-judicial statement to the Police through PW5 which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit E and that the conviction and sentence of the Appellant were based on that exhibit. He stated that on appeal to the Court below, counsel for the Appellant argued in the main that in view of the contradictions in Exhibit ‘E’ and the fact that it failed to meet the six tests for the determination of the veracity of the truth of a confessional statement, Exhibit ‘E’ lacks the requisite probative value to warrant the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. He said the Court of Appeal disagreed with that submission.

Mr. Ogunsanya of counsel for the Appellant contended that the extra-judicial statement of the Appellant fell short of a confessional statement as envisaged by Section 27 (2) of the Evidence Act and as has been judicially interpreted in a long line of cases. He cited Obiasa v. State (1962) 2 SCNLR 402; Dawa v State (1980) 8 – 11 SC (Pt. 236).