Aleke V. Cop (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, hereinafter referred to as the Court below, affirming the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court. The trial Court’s judgment was delivered on 25th March 2015 while the Lower Court’s judgment being appealed against is dated 18th December 2017.

The appellant and two others, Mohammed Ibrahim and Peter Onuh, were arraigned on a three-count charge of criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery and unlawful possession of locally made pistol contrary to Sections 5(b), 1(2) and 3(1) of the Robbery and Firearms Special Provisions Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation 1990. The 4th accused, Usman Sarki, was charged with receiving stolen property contrary to Section 317 of the Penal Code.

The four accused persons on arraignment pleaded not guilty to their respective charges.

To establish the case against the appellant and the other three accused persons, the prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered seven Exhibits: A1— A3, B, C, D and E.

The appellant and his co-accused persons testified for themselves. At trial the appellant and the 1st and 3rd accused persons resiled from their extra-judicial statement: D, B and C respectively.

At the close of the case including addresses of counsel, the trial Court in a well-considered judgment convicted the 1st – 3rd accused persons as charged and sentenced them to death by hanging.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the lower Court on a notice filed on 21st June, 2015 containing five grounds. The appeal was held unmeritorious and dismissed by the Court in its judgment delivered on the 18th December, 2017. The death sentence imposed by the trial Court was also affirmed by the lower Court.

Aggrieved, the appellant has further appealed to this Court on three grounds by his notice filed on the 23rd February 2018.

At the hearing of the appeal, parties’ respective counsel adopted and relied on their briefs of argument that had earlier been filed and exchanged.

The sole issue distilled by the appellant at paragraph 3.0 of his brief for the determination of the appeal reads: – “Whether the lower Court was right when the Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court based on the evidence of witnesses particularly the confessional statement of the appellant which was manifestly contradicting and unreliable in the face of the evidence before the trial Courts”.

Appellant’s foregoing issue has been adopted by the respondent at paragraph 3.1 of its brief as calling for resolution in the determination of the appeal.

On the lone issue, learned appellant’s counsel submits that it is wrong of the lower Court to affirm the trial Court’s findings of appellant’s guilt arrived at principally on the basis of Exhibit D, his supposed confessional statement. Apart from the violent internal contradictions in the statement itself, Exhibit D further contradicts all the other pieces of evidence on record. No reasonable tribunal, it is argued, can adjudge Exhibit D as being appellant’s confession to the commission of the offences he has been convicted for. Relying on the definition of confession under Section 27(1) of the Evidence Act, ABIRIFON V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 471) 873, learned counsel submits that the two Courts are wrong to have dubbed Exhibit D as confessional and relied heavily on it in convicting the appellant. Learned appellant’s counsel x-rayed the totality of the evidence on record and concluded that Exhibit D remains uncoborrated by any piece of evidence either proffered by the prosecution or any of the appellant’s co-accused. Further relying on OKOH V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 453) 1358 at 1392, learned counsel insists that the two Courts did not exercise the amount of diligence the law directs before they acted upon Exhibit D to convict the appellant. Having acted on the document inspite of the doubt as to its being made by the appellant, learned counsel concludes that the lingering doubt be resolved in appellant’s favour as specified inter-alia in QUEEN V. OBIASA (1962) ALL NLR 645, HUMBA V. STATE (1978) 10 DSCC 126, SHEHU V. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT 523) 1841 at 1861 and OLADELE V. STATE (1993) 1 NWLR (PT 269) 294. Learned counsel urges that the appeal be allowed and the perverse concurrent decisions of the two Courts below be set-aside.

​Learned respondent’s counsel submits that the appellant is wrong in the contention that his confessional statement, Exhibit D, has wrongly been relied upon by the two Courts given those of his co-accused and the evidence of the prosecution the statement wantonly contradicts. Instead Exhibit D, it is contended, neither contradicts any of the confessional statement of his co-accused nor the evidence of any of the witnesses either for the prosecution or the defence. The contradiction between Exhibit D and the other pieces of evidence on record if any, learned counsel submits, are minor and not violent enough to warrant rejection of the confession by the Court. Referring to Exhibit D as well as Exhibits B and C made by the 1st and 3rd accused respectively, learned respondent’s counsel submits that the latter two corroborate rather than contradict the former. Counsel cites AYO GABRIEL V. THE STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 122) 457 at 468.