David Ojeabuo V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna in Suit No FHC/KD/33C/2009 and delivered by Honorable Justice M.L. Shuaibu on the 30th of June, 2010. The Appellant, along with one Chinedu Ugwu, was arraigned before the lower Court on a three count charge of, without lawful authority, trafficking/transporting, aiding one Mr. Obinna to deal in and being in possession of 648 kilogrammes of cannabis sativa, otherwise known as Indian hemp, a narcotic drug contrary to the provisions of Sections 11(b), 14(b) and 19 of the Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act of 2004.

The Appellant pleaded Not Guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial and during which the Respondent, as the prosecution, called three witnesses and tendered several exhibits, inclusive of the confessional statements of two accused persons, while the Appellant and his co-accused testified in their defence.

At the conclusion of the trial and, after the written addresses of Counsel, the lower Court found the Appellant and his co-accused guilty as charged and sentenced the Appellant to five years on the first count and fifteen years each on the second and third counts with a directive that the sentences are to run concurrently. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and he filed a notice of appeal dated the 23rd of July, 2010 against it. The notice of appeal contained five grounds of appeal.

In agitating the complaints of the Appellant against the judgment of the lower Court in this appeal, Counsel to the Appellant presented a brief of arguments dated the 6th of April, 2011 and filed on the 7th of April, 2011 and it consisted of twelve pages.

In response, the Respondent filed a brief of arguments dated the 4th of March, 2013 and this was sequel to an order of extension of time to file its brief of arguments made by this Court on the 26th of February, 2013. The brief of arguments consisted of eighteen pages. The Appellant filed a reply brief of three pages dated the 15th of March, 2013. Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the contents of their respective briefs of arguments at the hearing of the appeal.

Counsel to the Appellant formulated a sole issue for determination in this appeal and it was:

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant on the three count charge basing his decision on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which was full of doubt and Exhibit C, the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant, without considering the evidence of the Appellant which was never contradicted or controverted by the Respondent?

In his response brief of arguments, Counsel to the Respondent formulated two issues for determination. These were:

i. Whether the Respondent discharged the burden of proof placed upon it in a criminal trial of this nature, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, against the Appellant.

ii. Whether there were contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so as render them unsafe to convict the Appellant.

The two issues for determination formulated by the Counsel to the Respondent are basically the same as the singular issue for determination formulated by the Counsel to the Appellant; the difference being their respective approaches in presenting arguments on the complaints of the Appellant in this appeal.

Counsel to the Appellant prefaced his submission with the essential ingredients necessary to be established by the Respondent to ground and sustain the charges brought against the Appellant and he stated that the plea of Not Guilty entered by the Appellant placed a duty on the Respondent to prove all the said essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt with such qualitative evidence that will leave the trial Court with the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant committed the offences for which he was charged.

Counsel stated that the Respondent did not discharge the burden placed on it as the quality of the evidence it led was not up to par and that the witnesses were self serving in their evidence and contradicted themselves and Counsel then proceeded to highlight three main areas in the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses which, he said, contained the contradictions.