Aminu Mohammed V. The State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

R.C. AGBO J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 8th April 2009 in which the appellant was convicted on a two count charge of conspiracy to murder contrary to S. 324 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Laws of Lagos State 1994 and attempt to murder contrary to S.320(1) of the Criminal Code Law Caps. 32 Laws of Lagos State 1994. He was sentenced on the first court of conspiracy to 10 years imprisonment while he was sentenced on the 2nd count to 18 years imprisonment. The appellant had been tried together with Lateef Sofolahan who was also convicted. In the information dated 20th July 2001 the accused persons were alleged to have attempted to murder Senator Abraham Adesanya on the 14th day of January 1997 at Simpson street Lagos.

Upon arraignment and plea the prosecution had called two witnesses and closed its case. Each accused person had testified and closed his case and appeal adjourned for the parties to file written addresses. The prosecution at this stage with leave of court called a third witness. Several documents were also tendered.

Upon conviction, the appellant being dissatisfied filed this appeal. The notice of appeal contained 20 grounds of appeal to wit:

“GROUND ONE

The trial court erred in law when it found as follows.

“In all the circumstances, I find PW1 to be a credible witness and do so hold.”

Thus making a perverse finding not supported by the evidence on record and occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice.

GROUND TWO

The trial court misdirected itself when in determining the credibility of PW1, it focused attention mainly on the demeanor of the witness while in court and held as follows:

“More importantly, PW1’s credibility has been attached on the ground that he has revealed himself to be a liar because he admitted lying. It is also submitted that he is a tutored and sponsored witness who has no mind of his own. He is also said to be a drunkard who dulls his memory with alcohol. Should the testimony of PW1 in this court be believed in the circumstances?

I watched PW1 in the box and he was quite sober and he came across as a rather different individual. He maintained decorum and was forthright and calm. He answered questions put to him without prevarication or argument…. lf indeed PW1 was a drunkard, he never came to court inebriated; he appears to have had a change of heart and I am able to believe his testimony that:

“I used to drink when I was in the world; I was of a heavy drinker, I used to drink to forget my sorrows and the hardship of the job

If he had been drinking and forgot some things, it would only meant that his testimony was not accurate. But when he testified that he used to drink a lot-that was in the past. I do not think the fact that PW1 used to drink makes him an incredible witness; nor does the fact that he missed out a few de-tail.”