Edet Asuquo Bassey V. The State (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice E. D. U. Idiong who was then the Tribunal Chairman sitting at the Robbery and Firearms Special Tribunal, holden at Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State. It was delivered on 26th May, 1999 convicting and sentencing the appellant to death.

The appellant was originally arraigned as the 5th accused person along with five other accused persons viz. Etim Edet Oboho, Effiong Etim Sunday, Joseph Edet Ekpo, Etim Asuquo Enobiak and Okon Dan Osung who were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th accused respectively. The accused were charged with the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions Decree NO.5 of 1984 (now Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004).

The charge which was later amended reads as follows:

“STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

ARMED ROBBERY contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions Decree NO.5 of 1984).

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ETIM EDET OBOHO, EFFIONG ETIM SUNDAY, JOSEPT EDET EKPO, ETIM ASUQUO ENOBIAK, EDET ASUQUO BASSEY and OKON DAN OSUNG on or about the 17th day of June, 1993 at Oron in Oron Judicial Division while armed with dangerous weapons to wit-matchet and pen knife robbed Okafor Ndukwe Anya and Uche Emole Uba of the sum of N220, 284.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Four Naira), property of one Sunday Ikena.”

All the six accused persons pleaded not guilty to the one count charge of armed robbery.

On 19th November, 1996, it was reported to the Tribunal that the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons were dead and their death certificates were tendered and admitted in evidence. Consequent upon this development, the name of the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused was struck out from the charge sheet. A fresh plea was taken from the surviving accused persons and they all pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter the Prosecution opened its case by calling 4 witnesses who testified. Some statements made by two of the witnesses were admitted in evidence as well as the statements of the accused. Also some motor cycles allegedly bought from the proceeds of the robbery were also tendered and admitted in evidence. Thereafter the prosecution closed its case and each of the accused testified in person. Joseph Edet Ekpo’s wife testified on behalf of her husband as DW2 while the appellant’s father gave evidence for him as DW4. The defence closed their case on 17/5/99 and in a reserved judgment delivered on 26/5/99, all the accused were found guilty of the offence of the robbery charge and sentenced to death. It is against this decision that the appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence in his Notice of Appeal dated 26th July, 2006 containing three grounds of appeal from which the following three issues were formulated for determination:

1. Whether the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant to death for the offence of Armed Robbery solely on the alleged confessional statement of the appellant without testing the veracity of the confessional statement.
2. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the material contradictions in the evidence, of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the identity of the appellant.
3. Whether there was proof before the Honourable Tribunal that the incident of 17/6/93 was an armed robbery incident.

The State adopted the issues formulated in the appellant’s brief. It is to be observed that the respondent erroneously stated that the Appellant formulated 4 issues for determination without identifying the 4th issue. Arguments in issue 1 were repeated in issue 2. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Exhs. 6, 7 and 8 which were signed and the oral testimony of the appellant in which he said he thumb-printed the statement he made to the police and the Tribunal’s reliance on Exhibit ‘7’ to convict him and argued that although it is settled law that a confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground a conviction once the court is satisfied with the truth of the confession as decided in YUSUFU V. THE STATE (1976) 6 SC 167, nevertheless as a matter of practice, the court normally requires some evidence in addition to a confessional statement which makes the confessional statement probable that same is true before it can rely on it in convicting the accused. Such confessional statement must pass the following tests before it can be relied upon to convict the accused person:

a) Whether there is evidence outside the confessional statement to show that it is true.

b) Whether the confessional statement is in fact corroborated.

c) Whether the statement could be tested as true.