Ekong Akpan Thomas V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Robbery and Firearms Special Tribunal sitting at Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State delivered on 28th day of May, 1999 convicting and sentencing the appellant and his co-accused to death for the offence of armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree No.5 of 1984.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed against his conviction and sentencing. Briefly, the prosecution, alleged that at about 2:00am on 17th day of December, 1995, the appellant with others attacked one Archibong Sam Mkpek in his home with guns and matchet of Omong Village in Etinan Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. The robbers threatened Pw1 with a gun and even matcheted him on his right hand. He lost consciousness during the robbery from bleeding. His wife who was with him at the time also gave evidence that the robbers took away money, household items and clothing. The accused persons were thereafter arrested and arraigned. The prosecution in proof of their case called five witnesses and tendered ten exhibits. The appellant and his co-accused testified in their defence and called no other witness.

At the end of their trial the Tribunal found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them to death. Being dissatisfied, the appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence. The appellant filed a notice and four grounds of appeal. The appellant filed his brief on 8th day December, 2011 and articulated three issues for determination follows:

“1. Whether the Tribunal below was right in relying upon the alleged confessional statement of the appellant to convict him? (Distilled from ground 1).

2. Whether the Tribunal below was right in holding that the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt especially having regard to the manner the appellant was identified by Pw1? (Distilled from ground 2).
3. Whether there were manifest contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, which could have created doubt in favour of the appellant? (Distilled from additional grounds 1 and 2).”

The respondent filed his brief on 15th day of March, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 21st March, 2012. The respondent also articulated three issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the Tribunal was right in relying upon the appellant’s confessional statement to convict the appellant.

2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether there were manifest contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case which could have created doubt in favour of the appellant.”

ISSUE 1:

“Whether the Tribunal below was right in relying upon the alleged confessional statement of the appellant to convict him?”

Counsel submitted that the prosecution tendered and relied on the alleged confessional statement of the appellant Exhibit “G” and that The Tribunal also relied on it to convict the appellant. The Tribunal held as follows:

“Besides, the accused persons in their Statements, Exhibit “A”, “D”, “F” and “G” and Exhibit “G1” and “G2” and “H” have been able to make a clean breast of the whole matter.”

Counsel submitted that the court have laid down the following test of veracity which on alleged confessional statement must pass. The test is as follows:

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

(b) Whether the confessional statement is in fact corroborated.