Chukwudi Ugwanyi V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.

The Appellant in this appeal was charged before the Federal High Court, Sokoto Division, sitting at Sokoto. He faced a one count charge of knowingly being in possession of Indian Hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa without lawful authority. His plea of not guilty was initially taken on 14th November, 2001. Thereafter, on 16th July, 2002 and 18th July, 2002, two prosecution witnesses gave evidence in the matter. Various exhibits were also tendered and admitted. For reasons contained in the record of appeal and presumably, that of transfer of the trial judge, Lambo, J. the Appellant’s plea was taken afresh on 13th February, 2004 before Hobon, J. and the trial began de novo. Again the Appellant pleaded not guilty to a substituted one count charge, which reads:-

“That you Chukwudi Ugwanyi (m) 50 years of age, of No. 4 Arowojobe Street Onigbongbo – Maryland, Lagos on or about the 17th November, 2000 at Bodinga along Sokoto-Yauri Road, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, and without lawful authority had in your possession 26 kilogrammes of Indian Hemp otherwise known as Cannabis Sativa, a Narcotic Drug similar to cocaine and Heroine and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10 H of the National Drug Law Enforcement agency (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 1992.”

Again, at the recommenced trial, two prosecution witnesses testified for the prosecution. PW1 – Bitrus Ajiku Damuda, Chief Narcotic Agent, NDLEA and PW2 – Ibrahim Musa, Assistant Superintendent of Narcotic 1. Also, exhibits were tendered and admitted before the trial court. They are: the certificate of testing analysis, packing of substance forms and request for scientific aid, marked as Exhibits A, B and C respectively. The recovered substance in a carton containing twelve wrapped and sellotaped bundles – admitted and marked as Exhibits D1 – D12 respectively. The sealed envelope opened in court, the report and transparent evidence pouch with substances, feature and descriptions of the Appellant are marked as Exhibits E, E1 and E2 respectively. The report Exhibit E1 certified the substance analysed to be Indian Hemp of the genus cannabis sativa.

At the close of prosecution’s case, the Appellant entered into his defence and gave evidence as DW1. At the close of Appellant’s defence, both the learned counsel for the prosecution and the defence filed and exchanged written addresses which were subsequently adopted by them. At the conclusion of the trial on 21st June, 2005, the learned trial judge in his decision found the Appellant guilty of the offence charged, convicted and sentenced him to (15) fifteen years imprisonment without option of fine.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the said decision of the trial court. His notice of appeal to this Court dated 15th July, 2005 contained three grounds of appeal. During the hearing of the appeal before the Court on 15th October, 2009, Magnus Ihejirika Esq., the learned counsel for the Appellant relied on and adopted their brief of argument filed on 16th March 2006. In the said Appellant’s brief, one issue was identified for determination in this appeal. It goes thus:

‘Whether having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature of evidence adduced, the findings and judgment of the lower court is not perverse and based on proper evaluation and appraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial.”

The Respondent’s brief of argument was settled by Pius Nuhu Gamde Esq., and the same was deemed properly filed and served by order of this Court sought and granted on 13th January, 2009. He also relied on and adopted the said brief, wherein three issues were curiously referred to as having been formulated by the Appellant for the determination of this appeal. They are as follows:

“1. Whether the decision of the trial court is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported by evidence.

2. Whether the decision of the trial court is perverse.

3. Whether the trial court erred in law by admitting and relying on the Forensic Science Report i.e. Exhibit E in convicting the Appellant.”

Nothing of the sort happened. Looking at the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant in his notice of appeal in this matter, it is obvious that the only issue raised in his brief was properly distilled from the grounds of appeal. I shall therefore consider the said sole issue for the determination of the instant appeal.

Ingredients of the offence charged in this appeal are:-

“(i) Possession or using the prohibited substance/drug.