Christian Igwe v. The State (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant in this appeal was charged alongside one Emmanuel Idowu (the “co-accused”) before the High Court of Justice Oyo State presided over by A. A. Gbolagunte, J. on a two (2) counts information dated 30th day of May, 2006, for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, Vol. XIV, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Upon arraignment on the 13th day of December, 2006, the appellant pleaded “not guilty” to both counts and trial commenced thereafter, with the respondent calling seven (7) witnesses while the appellant testified for himself and called no other witness.

On the 20th day of January, 2006, the trial court delivered its judgment and found the appellant guilty of the two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

The appellant became nettled by the decision of the trial court and therefore filed a notice of appeal on the 18th day of February, 2013 containing three (3) grounds of appeal.

The lower court dismissed the appeal in a judgment delivered on the 6th day of December, 2017, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Still peeved by the decision of the lower court, the appellant further appealed to this court via notice of appeal dated the 2nd day of January, 2018 but filed on 3rd day of January, 2018, containing three (3) grounds of appeal. Learned counsel Bamidele Ibironke, filed the appellant’s brief of argument on the 18th day of November, 2019, the brief was deemed as properly filed and served on the 22nd day of September, 2021.

Counsel nominated two (2) issues for determination. Learned counsel also filed the appellant’s reply brief on the 14th day of September, 2020 but deemed as properly filed and served on the learned 22nd day of September, 2021. The two (2) issues nominated for discourse in this appeal by the counsel for the appellant are as follows:

1. Whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence on record, the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery despite the presence of factors in the case which ought to have created reasonable doubts in favor of the appellant.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the findings of the trial court which discountenanced the alibi raised by the appellant, even though the prosecution did not investigate or impeach the alibi timeously raised by the appellant.

On the part of the respondent, learned counsel Mrs. Olayemi Badewole, filed the respondent’s brief of argument on the 9th day of June, 2020 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 2nd day of September, 2021, wherein a sole issue for determination was crafted by learned counsel, the issue reads as follows:

1. Whether or not, having regard to the evidence adduced by the respondent at the trial court in proof of the charge against the appellant, the lower court rightly or wrongly affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Submissions of counsel for the appellant

Issue one

Learned counsel for the appellant said there were many crucial lapses in the prosecution’s case which ought to have led to the appellant’s discharge and acquittal. Relying on the cases of Okanlawon v. State (2015) 12 WRN 100; (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1489) 445 SC 472 – 473, H – A, Sale v. State (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 392 at 413, D – E, counsel submitted that in armed robbery cases as in the instant case, proper identification of the accused is very vital and is sine qua non to a conviction.

It is the submission of learned counsel that the only direct evidence on the alleged armed robbery, which took place on the 6th day of May, 2005 are those of PW1 and PW2, who did not with certainty identify the appellant as one of those who robbed them.

Counsel explained that PW1 and PW2’s evidence only shows that they encountered the people who robbed them for the first time on the morning of 6th day of May, 2005, at about 1.30 am; and there was no light, and from PW1’s evidence, they were made to lie face down. So, this presupposes that the victims did not have ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the robbers sufficient to later recognize them.