CPL. Isah Ahmed V. The Nigerian Army (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the General Court Martial of the Nigerian Army sitting in Abuja. The judgment was delivered by the said court on 29th August, 2005.

FACTS:

The Accused/Appellant (Corporal Isah Ahmed 91 NA/32/4119) was charged before the Lower court for defilement contrary to Section 78 of the Armed Forces Act Cap. A 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The particulars of the offence state that he (accused/appellant) at Abuja between February March, 2002 had carnal knowledge of Miss Ruth Waziri, a girl of 11 years of age and on several occasions.

On the 26th of July, 2005 the Prosecution amended the charge to read that the alleged offence was committed between January, 2004 – March, 2005. The prosecution called 5 witnesses in all while the accused/appellant called 2 witnesses and testified for himself as DW1. The two sides addressed the Lower court extensively at the close of their respective cases and the matter was then adjourned for judgment and on the date for judgment found the accused/appellant guilty and convicted him accordingly. Being dissatisfied the accused has appealed to this court with leave of court granted on 21st June, 2007.

On the 15th February, 2010 date of hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant Chief O.J. Onoja on his behalf adopted Appellant’s Brief filed on , 6/10/09 and deemed filed on 28/10/09. In it was framed one single issue for determination viz:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

Mr. Rilwanu. Learned counsel for the Respondent adopted the Respondent’s Brief dated on 18/11/09 and filed on 24/11/09. The Respondent couched a sole issue as follows:-

Whether or not in view of the evidence as contained in the record of proceedings, the trial Court Martial was justified in holding that the charge of defilement against the Accused/Appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue as formulated by the Appellant being simple and straight forward. I shall utilise it for the purpose of the consideration of this appeal.

SOLE ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

For the Appellant was contended by Chief Onoja of counsel, that to prove the offence alleged, the prosecution ought to establish the following:-

(a) That there was unlawful carnal knowledge of the victim (PW2).