Geofrey Ogidi V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant and another person as 1st and 2nd Accused were charged with offence of Armed Robbery contrary to section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 Vol. XXII, Laws of The Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990.

The particulars of the said offence reads:

“Geofrey Ogidi, Anicetus Echesim Arinze and others now at large on the 10th day of November, 1998 at Umuire Village Orlu Judicial Division armed with guns robbed one late Albert Eshieuko of the sum of N500.000 cash, one Mercedes Benz Saloon Car with Registration No. AV 892 DKA valued at N430,000.00, one Video Camera and at the end left the victim dead;”

In order to sustain the case against the said Accused persons the prosecution called four (4) witnesses. Appellant testified in his own behalf. At the end of hearing and Learned Counsel addresses the Learned trial Judge on 27th day of October, 2005 gave a considered judgment and held in respect of the Appellant as follows:-

“The 1st accused Geoffrey Ogidi admitted being present at the scene of crime and in the company of the robbers but claimed that he was led to the scene forcefully and kept lying down and guarded by the robbers until after the robbery when he got up and started running and shouting “thief, thief, thief”. He did not testify that anybody in the village saw or heard him running and shouting. There was also no evidence of his membership of or the existence of the vigilante Outfit at Orlu or of his report to the Chairman of the said outfit about his encounter with the robbers.

On the other hand the only sound of an explosive heard by all other witnesses was that simultaneous with the entry of the robbers. If there was the sound of a knockout, it was heard only by the 1st accused and no one else. The 1st accused did not lead any evidence of the ban on knockouts and why he considered the enforcement of the ban so crucial as to abandon his family at meal to run out in pursuit of the knockout offender. There was the evidence of the confrontation of the 1st accused by the deceased mother with the plea of “why not shoot me instead of my son” of his walking past the prostrate body of the deceased as well as that he drove away in the same vehicle with the other robbers. In my view, the 1st accused offered no convincing answers to the said pieces of evidence.

There is also the evidence of the 3rd prosecution witness that he saw and gripped the 1st accused. Both of them fell down before he (P.W.3) was shot in the head. The answer of the 1st accused to that evidence was in my view, evasive. He spoke of not seeing any of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Nnamdi. He was silent about P.W.3 Emeka Eshieuko who allegedly gripped and fell down with him.

In sum, my view is that the story of his forceful abduction by the robbers to the house was a pre-planned defence. His bare bodied and maskless posture were intended to further his plot. His attitude after the crime-his failure or refusal to sympathize with the family; his alleged staying for 3 days at his work place from which work place he was already on suspension further strengthened the prosecution’s case of his voluntary involvement.

I find that he was one of the robbers who robbed and killed the deceased on the 10th November, 1998. He was not a victim of circumstance.”

See pages 101-106. The trial Judge concluded thus:

“In the result, I find that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. I find them- Geoffrey Ogidi and Anicetus Echesim Arinze guilty of Armed Robbery as charged.

ALLOCTUS:

1st accused – I cannot collect myself to ask for leniency, God and everybody knows that I am not a rogue. I have never stolen since I was born. This is a case of accusation against me. 2nd accused – please have mercy on me. I have never stolen before. Chief M.A.C Opurum – Prays the court to temper justice with mercy. Urges the Court to consider the relationship between the parties. Hereby gives oral notice of appeal.