Ememobong Edet Umoh V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI A. OTISI, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, sitting at Uyo, delivered on 22/6/2012.

The Appellant was the 2nd accused person in Charge No HU/3C/2012. The accused persons were charged on a two count Charge for kidnapping punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law 2009; and, aiding the commission of offence contrary to Section 10(1)(d) of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law 2009. The Appellant was found guilty of aiding commission of offence contrary to Section 10(1)(d) of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law, 2009; and, sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant has appealed to this Honourable Court.

The facts leading to this appeal are as follows: The Appellant was house help of the family of Dr. Okon John Emah and Dr. Mrs. Helen Emah. On 9/11/2010, she was sent by her mistress to purchase waterleaves (vegetables). She did not come back. Her mistress, Dr. Mrs. Helen Emah, who testified as PW2, was contacted by kidnappers, who demanded the sum of N50 million for her release. Dr. Okon John Emah, PW1, informed the mother of the Appellant of the kidnap of her daughter. On the advice of the State Security Service (SSS), the Appellant’s mother, rather than PW1, negotiated for the release of the Appellant.

While the negotiation was going on, investigation by the SSS officers revealed, through a tracking machine, that the Appellant had communicated with one of the numbers used by the kidnappers for about 425 minutes, over a period of ten days prior to the date of the offence. Meanwhile, the Appellant’s mother apparently successfully negotiated her release. Upon her release, she was picked up by the SSS for interrogation. During investigation, the Appellant confessed that she was being kept in the residence of the 1st accused by her boyfriend, one Clement Sylvester Etim, with her consent, in order to extort money from the Appellant’s employers (PW1 and PW2). She added that the 1st accused person was not privy to this plot. The said Clement Sylvester Etim is at large.

The case was later transferred to the Police for further investigation. PW3 was of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad. His investigations also revealed that the Appellant had been detained in the house of the 1st accused person, with her consent, in order to extort money from PW1. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution did not prove its case against the 1st accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

He was therefore discharged and acquitted. For the Appellant, the trial court relied on her statement, Exhibit B, and other evidence proffered to find that the offence as charged in Count 11 had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. She was sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with her conviction and sentence, she filed this appeal.

The Notice and Grounds of Appeal, raising three Grounds of Appeal, was filed on 3/7/2012. Ekanem Ekanem Esq. learned Counsel for the Appellant filed the Appellant’s Brief on 24/12/2012 but it was deemed properly filed and served on 7/5/2013. The Respondent’s Brief was filed on 4/4/2013 by Friday J. Itim Esq., of the Department of Public Prosecution, Ministry of Justice, Uyo, but deemed properly filed and served on 7/5/2013. These Briefs were adopted by respective Counsel on 7/5/2013.

Out of the 3 Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant formulated 4 issues:

1. Whether the High Court below was not wrong in finding the Appellant guilty of aiding commission of offence and sentencing her to death for same when the offence she is said to have aided was neither established nor proved.
2. Whether the High Court below was not wrong in convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death for aiding commission of offence upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 when they were neither victims of the offence said to have been committed, nor witnessed same.
3. Whether the High Court below was not wrong in convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death for aiding commission of offence when the 1st Accused person, Ime Mathias Okon, charged along with her for the offence of kidnapping was discharged and acquitted.
4. Whether the High Court below was not wrong in convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death for aiding commission of a crime upon an unpublished law.

For the Respondent, three issues were raised as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the Lower Court was right to convict and sentence the accused/appellant to death on the strength of the evidence adduced by the witnesses as well as the confession of the accused/appellant.
3. Whether the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law (under which the accused/appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced) was duly enacted by the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly, as a written Law.

Issues 1, 2, and 3 raised by the Appellant are similar to Issues 1 and 2 raised for the Respondent. These Issues shall be considered together, and are all renumbered as Issue No 1.

Issue No 4 raised for the Appellant and Issue No 3 raised by the Respondent are also similar and shall be considered together, renumbered as Issue No 2.

On Issue No 1, the Appellant relied on the provisions of Section 1(1) of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law, which provides as follows:

No person shall