Alhaji Isiyaku Mohammed V Kano Native Authority (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N.

The appellant was originally convicted in the Urban Area Court of Kano on a charge of criminal breach of trust and sentenced to a term of 8 years imprisonment with hard labour. He appealed to the High Court of the Kano Judicial Division (as it was then) which dismissed his appeal against conviction but reduced the sentence to 4 years imprisonment with hard labour. This then is a second appeal.

The appellant was employed by Alhaji Dantata & Sons and on 1st February, 1967 he was entrusted with a sum of £5,086:17s:6d in Kano for delivery in the ordinary course of business to one Hamza in Garin Gabas. The car in which he was to travel developed engine trouble and he took the money to his house for delivery next day. From the evidence before the court, it would appear that the appellant had been entrusted in the past with such large sums of money.

The amount was kept in a room upstairs which was locked up for the night. Early next morning a friend of the appellant who slept in the adjacent room reported that the room had been broken into and the window was found to have been interfered with. On examination of the room it was found that the case containing the money were missing save for an amount of £300 in coins in three boxes.

The appellant made a report to the police that the whole amount had been removed. During the police investigations which followed, apart from small amounts discovered in the house a sum of £830 was found in a kitchen in the house and which amount, it was alleged, the appellant was concealing. The investigations were made by one Inspector Markifa and his assistants.

The appeal before us was argued mainly on the conduct of the trial in the Urban Area Court. It was submitted that the appellant did not have a fair hearing as required by section 22 of the Constitution, and that the High Court of Justice of the Northern States which heard the appeal erred in failing to quash the conviction on the ground that the appellant had been deprived of his right to fair hearing. Section 22(2) of the Constitution reads:-

“(2)Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court.”

It has been suggested that a fair hearing does not mean a fair trial. We think a fair hearing must involve a fair trial, and a fair trial of a case consists of the whole hearing. We therefore see no difference between the two, The true test of a fair hearing, it was suggested by counsel, is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial, whether, from his observations, justice has been done in the case. We feel obliged to agree with this.

In his argument before us, counsel for the appellant directed our attention to certain portions of the judgments in the courts below about which he complained. We feel compelled to refer to a few. The first which we would like to examine is a portion in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the appeal court. It reads:-

“The appeal against conviction is dismissed. We are compelled to this conclusion with some reluctance in view of the irregularities in the investigation of the case and the conduct of the prosecution. It may be doubted whether a jury would have convicted after hearing the evidence of the appellant’s treatment at the Army Barracks..”

Now, what are the irregularities in the investigation and the conduct of prosecution to which the court of appeal referred? During the investigations the police officer (Inspector markifa) who led the investigation team, after examining the broken window through which access was gained into the appellant’s room from where the money was alleged stolen, found the nature of the breaking suspicious.

In his evidence before the Urban Area Court Inspector Markifa referred to the broken shutter of the window and pointed out that it was broken on the hinge side and that it was a panelled shutter and the frame of the panelling had been pulled apart at the joints. He gave as his opinion that this could not have been done when the shutter was bolted shut. The court later accepted this opinion tendered by the witness.

At the end of the prosecution”s case the area court judge viewed the site and examined the room where the money was kept. There is nothing to show that the appellant himself was present at this viewing or that there were questions asked of witnesses on the spot, particularly Inspector Markifa: See R. v. Oyefolu and Others 13 W.A.C.A. 186.

A note which was apparently made later forms part of the record. The record however does not show that the appellant was aware of the observations of the judge or that it was read out to him and invited to make comments or that he cross-examined any of the witnesses present at the locus in accordance with the view expressed by the West African Court of Appeal in R. v. Dogbe 12 WA.C.A 184.