Godwin Chukwuma V. The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

On the 22nd day of March, 2004, Mr. Godwin Chukwuma (a.k.a. Goddy), a business man, accused/appellant herein, was arrested by the men of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) at Hajiya Halima area, Sokoto, in Sokoto State. The allegation against him was that he was found in possession of 305 kilogrammes of CANABI SATIVA, otherwise known as INDIAN HEMP without lawful authority. On the 30th day of March, 2004, the accused was arraigned before the Federal High court (trial court), holden in Sokoto. The following charge was read and explained to the accused:

“That you GODWIN CHUKWUMA (a k.a Goddy) male, 36 years of age of Mabera Area of Sokoto, on or about 22nd March, 2004 at Hajiya Halima area, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court and without lawful authority had in your possession 305 kilogramms of Canabis Sativa otherwise known as Indian Hemp, a Narcotic Drug similar to Cocaine and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10H of the NDLEA (Amendment) Decree No. 15 of 1992.”

The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. On the 27th day of April, 2004, trial commenced with prosecution calling five witnesses (in all) and the accused gave what he called statement as an accused and not a witness to himself. He called no witness. That was on the 28th day of July, 2004. Since there was no more witnesses to testify, the learned trial judge adjourned the case for judgment on 21st of September, 2004. On the 21st day of September, the trial court sat for judgment. However, a statement was recorded that the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, Sokoto Command was in receipt of large brown envelope annexed to it’s drug analysis report dated 19th of August, 2004, which the learned counsel for the prosecution applied to be tendered from the bar. The accused was recorded not objecting and stated further that the analysis would assist them to know actually whether the drugs in question was Indian Hemp or not. The trial court admitted the sealed brown envelope in evidence as Exhibit ‘E’. The court directed that Exhibit ‘E’ be unsealed in the open court and contents thereof was read aloud. The accused also read it. The trial court found the substance to be INDIAN HEMP CANABIS SATIVA through one Mr. Afolabi, a Chemistry Forensic Analyst. Thereafter, the accused made a plea to the trial court to tamper justice with mercy as his wife was sick and nobody to help her. He further begged for leniency. He finally stated that the allegation was true and he had no other defence open to him. The trial court thereafter proceeded to deliver its judgment on that same date (21st of September, 2004). It found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the accused guilty of the offence charged. It convicted him and sentenced him to a minimum period of fifteen (15) years imprisonment without option of fine.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the convict appealed to the Kaduna Division of the Court of Appeal (court below). The court below found no merit in the appeal. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Dissatisfied further, the appellant filed his appeal to this court. The Notice of appeal which was signed by him contained four (4) grounds of appeal. He sought for an order allowing the appeal by setting aside the decision of the court below and for his discharge and acquittal from the offence.

After settling briefs, learned counsel for the respective parties adopted their briefs of argument on the hearing day (3rd of March, 2011). The appellant formulated three (3) issues for determination by this court. They are as follows:

ISSUE ONE:

Whether there was evidence before the trial court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance allegedly recovered from the Appellant by men of the NDLEA and analyzed by the Forensic expert was indeed Cannabis Sativa otherwise known as Indian Hemp and that same is a drug similar to cocaine, LSD or heroine. This issue relates to grounds one and two of the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant.

ISSUE TWO:

Was the Appellant denied fair trial or in any way prejudiced when the prosecution was allowed by the court to re-open its case on the date fixed for as to enable the prosecution prove some matters of substance relating to the charge This issue relates to ground three of the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant.

ISSUE THREE:

Was the court below correct to have relied on an alleged confessional statement of the Appellant to confirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant This issue relates to ground four of the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant”

The respondent adopted the issues formulated by the appellant.