Bello Shurumo Vs The State (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

M. MUKHTAR, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, which affirmed the decision of the High Court of Kwara State. In the High Court the appellant was arraigned on the following two counts charge which read as follows:-

“Count one

1. That you Bello Shurumo, Manu Namuj (sic) (at large), Doju Namujere (at large) and Tanu Namujere (at large) on or about the 13th day September, 2006 at Alikaikai via Aderan village Edu (sic) L.G.A. within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court did conspire to do an illegal act to wit Armed robbery and you committed an offence contrary to section 97 of the penal Code.
2. That you Bello Shurumo, Manu Mamuj (at large), Doju Namujere (at large) and Tanu Namujere (at large) on or about the 13th day September 2006 at Alikaikai via Aderan village Edu (sic) L.G.A. within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court robbed one Mohammed Natata at gun point and carted away the sum of N2,000.00 and some other valuable items, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 1(2) of Armed Robbery and Five (sic) Arms (Special provision) Act Cap R. 11 Laws of Federation Nigerian 2004.”

The appellant denied the two count charge. In a bid to prove its case, the prosecution called five witnesses who gave evidence, but the defence rested their case on the prosecution’s case, and did not produce any defence. The learned trial judge found the accused/appellant not guilty as charged, but found him guilty of attempted armed robbery and convicted him. He appealed to the court of Appeal on three grounds of appeal, which were dismissed, and the judgment and conviction of the trial court were affirmed. Again in exercise of his constitutional right the accused/appellant has appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal from which three issues for determination were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument, and adopted by the respondent in its own brief of argument. The briefs of argument that were exchanged by the learned counsel for both sides were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. The first issue for determination is whether the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof imposed on it to prove the charge of attempted armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt in order for the court below to affirm the judgment of the trial court. In arguing this issue, the learned counsel for the appellant stated the essential ingredients of armed robbery listed in the case of Bello v. State 2007 10 NWLR part 1043 page 564, as follows:-

(a) that there was a robbery or series of robbery;

(b) that each of the robbery was an armed robbery;

(c) that the accused was one of those who robbed.

The learned counsel also stated the ingredients of attempt to commit armed robbery as follows:

(a) that the accused had an intention to commit robbery;

(b) that the accused was armed with dangerous weapon;

(c) that the accused exercised violence against his victim in the course of fulfilling his intention;

(d) that the accused actually exercised the robbery but was cut short as a result of a timely intervention;

The learned counsel for the appellant went to a great length of argument on the voluntariliness of the confessional statements of the appellant, Exhibits B and C, which he argued were made in English language, and as such required the interpretation of somebody. He did not however suggest the language it should have been made in or interpreted to. This argument became necessary because reliance was placed on the confessional statements by the prosecution. According to learned counsel the requirements for an extrajudicial statement were not all met. See Kim v. State 1992 4 NWLR part 233 page 17. The learned counsel for the respondent has however submitted that the procedures in Kim v. State supra were followed in making Exhibits B and C and the trial court was satisfied before the two statements were admitted. Now, I will reproduce the evidence of the investigation officer who recorded the statement, Exhibit ‘B’. On page 27 of the printed record of appeal can be found the following:-

“Being a member of the anti robbery section, I was instructed by the team leader in person of Inspector Mathew Adilor to record the statement of the accused person which I did. I cautioned the accused person in English language and read it over to him in Hausa language which he told me he understood before he thumb printed it. He then volunteered (sic) as a confessional statement in Hausa language. After the statement was recorded, I read it over to the accused person in Hausa language which he understood to be correct before he thumb printed while I counter signed as the recorder. Being a confessional statement (sic). I took the accused before my superior officer in the person of superintendent Emmanuel Ajayi for endorsement. The statement was again read over to the accused in English language and I interpreted it to the accused in Hausa language. He understood the statement and thumb printed it, my superior officer signed it and I also signed the statement.