Chukwudi Oyem V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant, as 2nd accused, was arraigned along with one Faith Osama, as 1st accused by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) at the Federal High Court, Abuja with the offence of Transportation of 103.1 kilograms of dried weeds suspected to be Indian hemp (cannabis sativa), a narcotic drug, contrary to Section 14(b) of the NDLEA Act 2004. At the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty while the 1st accused pleaded not guilty.

Thereafter, the facts were stated by the prosecution. The Certificate of Preliminary Test Analysis and the Confessional Statement of the appellant were tendered and admitted as exhibits without objection. The appellant was consequently convicted upon his plea, his confessional statement and other evidence as presented by the prosecution and sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labour, without option of fine.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the other accused person were arrested by officials of NDLEA, Abuja while driving a car with a fake Ministry of Defence plate number. When the boot of the car was opened 12 bags of dried weed suspected to be Indian hemp (cannabis sativa) were found. A preliminary test was conducted on the weeds in the presence of the accused persons and the test proved positive. A sample of the weed was put in a transparent evidence pouch, and sealed in the presence of the accused person. This was taken to laboratory for drug analysis by a forensic expert. The appellant wrote a confessional statement which was endorsed by a superior police officer. However, the report of the analysis was not received before the prosecution of the case at the lower court.

This appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are –

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial Judge erred in law by convicting the appellant when the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

GROUND TWO:

The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment without option of fine.

GROUND THREE:

The judgment of the trial court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

In the Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by Aliyu O. Saiki Esq, two issues were formulated for determination from the grounds of appeal filed –

“i WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD PROVED ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO WARRANT THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. (GROUNDS ONE AND THREE).