Andrew Idemudia V. The State(1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C. 

The appellant Andrew Idemudia was charged in the Mbano/Etiti High Court of Imo State with the murder of one Ngozi Okpara contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963. He was tried and convicted. He was sentenced to death. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, that court dismissed the appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence. The appellant has further appealed to this court.

The prosecution’s case is that on 19 November, 1985, the appellant and four other police officers were on duty at a police check point at Onu Imo Etiti-Umuahia Road, in Imo State. At about 9.a.m. P.W.1 drove up in a Hiace bus reg. No. RV. 6133 D. He was carrying his church co-members to a graduation ceremony at Assembly of God Mission Divinity School Old Umuahia. The group was singing and praising God. The appellant stopped the vehicle and questioned P.W.1 as to their destination. P.W. 1 told him. He then asked P.W. 1 to alight and he did. According to P.W.1 the appellant demanded some gratification. He said he told the appellant that the persons he was carrying were not fare paying passengers. The appellant was delaying the vehicle unnecessarily and it was on the intervention of P.W.5 the Inspector in charge of the check point that the appellant let him go.

On their way back, P.W.1 met the same officers at the check point. The appellant waved them on. P.W.1 moved on and was ascending the Umungwa village hill when a taxi 504 Peugeot carrying the appellant overtook him and blocked the road. P.W.1 stopped. The appellant then broke the front windscreen of the bus with the butt of his gun. P.W. 1 asked why he behaved so. According to P.W.1, it was at that stage that the appellant put the nozzle of his gun (Exhibit “D”) inside the bus and opened fire instantly killing Ngozi Okpara and injuring others. P.W.1 managed to escape and reported the incident to Umuopara police station.

The appellant testified on oath in his defence but called no witness. His case is that he was on a road block with P.W.5 and P.W.7 when the bus driven by P.W.1 approached the check point. P.C. Alphonsus waved the bus to stop but it did not. Constable Alphonsus stopped another vehicle and pursued it. When he did not return, the Inspector (P.W.5) ordered him to go and find out what happened. On arrival at the scene he saw people beating up P.W.7. He went to stop the fight but the people turned on him, beat him up and tried to remove his rifle. While they were struggling for the rifle, it accidentally went off. As I have already indicated, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant of murder as charged and sentenced him to death.

At page .1 of the appellant’s brief three issues were formulated for determination in this appeal. They read:

“(i) Whether the trial, conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are a nullity in view of the failure of the trial court to comply strictly with the provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 31 Laws or Eastern Nigeria 1963 applicable in Imo State as well as section 33(6) (a) of the 1979 Constitution.

(ii) Whether failure of the prosecution to call as a witness the person who was said to have identified the corpse of the deceased to the doctor who performed the autopsy (P.W.4) is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(iii) Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,’

For its part the respondent raised the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether the non writing down of the trial Judge that the appellant/respondent understood the language of the court which is English and in which language the appellant testified amounted to any miscarriage of justice and extended to section 215 of Criminal Procedure Cap. 31 of Eastern Nigeria 1963 applicable in Imo State and section 33(6) (a) of the 1979 Constitution.

(ii) Whether the State (respondent) proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the body of the deceased notwithstanding it’s (sic) failure to call John Egwim to testify.

(iii) Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The issues raised by the parties are identical