Alhaji Morouf Omolaja Ajisegiri V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court, Abeokuta, delivered by O. A. Ogundepo, J. on the 30th day of October, 2006 in Charge No. ABJ/ICPC/1/05, in which the Appellant was the 1st accused. The Respondent was the complainant, in a two count charge of Conspiracy to commit an offence contrary to Section 26(1)(c) and punishable under Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and spending money allocated for printing of books on Ileya gifts contrary to and punishable under Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

At the conclusion of hearing, the then 2nd accused was discharged and acquitted while the Appellant was found guilty and convicted accordingly.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant’s original Notice of Appeal dated 30/11/06 was filed on 11/12/06, on the order of this court of 8/4/08, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal, on 10/4/08, from which the Appellant raised two (2) issues for the determination of this appeal. The issues are as follows:-

(1) Whether the lower court was right when it Convicted the Appellant having found that the Appellant did not enrich himself or take any benefit from the transaction of the Ileya gifts.

(ii) Whether the evidence led by the Respondent at the lower court, discloses any gum against the Appellant as against the provisions of Section 22(5) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offence Act.

The Respondent also raised two (2) issues for determination as follows (i) Whether from the totality of evidence adduced by the Respondent was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he found the Appellant guilty and convicted for contravening the provision of Section 22(5) of the Act.

At the hearing of the Appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant A. M. Uthman Esq., adopted and relied upon his brief of argument dated and filed on 9/2/09 deemed as filed on 24/9/09 in which his two issues were argued.

In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that the trial court had no reason to have convicted the Appellant, that for a conviction to be justified, every ingredient which constitutes the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with reference to the evidence of the PW1 (pages 31 and 38 of the records), PW2 (page 40 of the records) and PW4 (page 43 of the records) contended that the Respondent failed to establish any guilt of the Appellant based on the evidence led in the lower court. Reliance was placed on the case of EDE V. F.R.N. (2000) 18 W.R.N. (Pt.17).AT PAGE 25 (Paragraphs 5 – 10).

On proof beyond reasonable doubt, we were referred to the case of ONYIA v. STATE (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt.991) P. 278 AT PAGE 293, Paragraphs B – C and PAGES 293 – 294 H – B. It was argued that the trial Judge (page 138 of the record) admitted in his judgment that the evidence led by the Respondent did not establish any guilt against the Appellant. We were urged to set aside the conviction of the Appellant on the basis that there was no credible evidence to sustain the conviction; reference was made to the case of LAMBERT V. NIGERIAN NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) PAGE 527 AT PAGE 548, Paragraph B.

We were urged to set aside the judgment of the lower court in favour of the Appellant; reliance was placed on the case of QUEEN V. OGODO (1961) N.S.C.C. (VOL 2) 311.

On the Appellant’s second issue, it was submitted that from the evidence led by the Prosecution witnesses and as agreed in the judgment of the lower court due process was followed for the approval of the N260, 000.00 for Ileya gifts.

It was contended that the money for the Ileya gifts was a loan to the Local Government by Mr. Justus Ademuyiwa Onabanjo who testified as PW6 (pages 46-27 of the records). In relying on the case of ADAVA &. ANOTHER V. THE STATE (2006) 3 SCM 1 AT 7, it was argued that one of the ingredients of the offence has not been proved and that entitled the Appellant to an acquittal. Also, relied upon was the case of ODEN v. F.R.N. (2005)1 Nee PAGE 306 AT 323. We were once again on the second issue, urged to set aside the judgment of the trial court as the conviction was not justified.