Bassey Edibi V. The State (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Justice, Cross River State, Obubra Judicial Division on 19/4/97.

The appellant (as 1st accused) was arraigned with four other accused persons on a Charge of Murder on 25/5/95. Each accused pleaded not guilty before Obasse, J in the High Court, Obubra. The matter proceeded to trial and at the end of the prosecution’s case the learned trial Judge found that no prima facie case was made out against either of the 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons. Each of the said 3rd, 4th and 5th accused persons was accordingly discharged. See page 21 of the records. The trial continued with the appellant as the 1st accused and Ukpai Obu as the second accused.

The defence rested its case on 2/12/96 and on 17/12/96 learned Counsel for the defence addressed the Court. On 29/1/97 the learned prosecuting Counsel replied before Obasse, J. who adjourned the case “to 17/3/97 for judgment at Obubra.” See page 81 of the records. On page 82 of the record the following appeared:

“Resumed at Obubra Before His Lordship Honourable Justice F. U. Ilok – Judge On Wednesday the 9th day of April 1997” In its judgment, running from page 82 – page 101 of the records the trial Court held

“The 2nd accused is hereby acquitted and discharged.”

See page 101 of the records. The trial Court found the appellant (1st accused) guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.

Aggrieved, Appellant filed a notice of appeal on seven grounds. Appellant was granted leave to amend his notice and grounds of appeal and the amended notice containing 9 grounds of appeal was deemed filed on 22/11/06.

From the 9 grounds of appeal learned Counsel for the appellant distilled the following three issues for the Court to determine:

(i) Whether the entire proceedings and or judgment of the lower Court are not a nullity, having regards to the point that the Honourable Justice F. U. Ilok who did not hear, listen to or watched the demeanour of the parties and their witnesses delivered and/or signed the judgment of the lower Court –

Ground 1.

(ii) Considering the state of evidence, particularly the scrappy, unreliable, terse, baseless and contradictory evidence led by the prosecution, whether or not the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant, thereby discharging the burden placed on it under our Laws – Grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.

(iii) Whether or not the prosecution succeeded in proving the essential ingredients of murder under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code to justify the verdict of guilt entered by the lower Court against the appellant – Ground 2″

In his brief of argument learned Counsel for the Respondent identified the following three issues for the Court to resolve: