Godwin Pius V. The State (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

At the High Court of Justice, Ondo State, Akure Judicial Division, the respondent herein filed information against the appellant and one Johnson Adeyemi for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Sections 5 (b) and 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. Upon their arraignment on December 6, 2006, each of the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Thereafter, the case went to trial.

The Prosecution’s case was erected on the testimonies of its two witnesses, namely, PW1, the victim of the crime, one Folabi Fayemi and PW2, one Corporal Michael Isichei of the Anti Robbery Section, SCID, Akure. The appellant (as first accused person) testified in his defence.

In its judgment of May 21, 2008, the said High Court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the trial Court”) convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to death by hanging or by firing Squad “as the Governor may direct.” Aggrieved the first accused person (appellant in this

1

appeal) approached the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, henceforth, simply, called “the Lower Court”) with his complaint against the said judgment of the trial Court entreating it [the Lower Court] to allow the appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence.

The Lower Court, having dismissed his appeal, he further appealed to this Court to set aside the concurrent findings of the Lower Courts and to acquit and discharge him. He formulated three issues from his Notice and Grounds of Appeal

These issues were expressed thus:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were in error when they held that identification parade was not necessary in the appellant’s case on the ground that the appellant did not contradict PW1 on his evidence of identity at trial
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were in the same error as the trial Court when they affirmed the conviction of the appellant based on Exhibit P5 without making any finding as to whether or not the appellant made the statement
3. Whether Section 9 of the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal (Special Provisions) Act conferring power of prosecution on the

2

Attorney General of Ondo State is inconsistent with Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which confers exclusive powers on the Attorney General of the Federation for prosecution of federal offences

When this appeal was heard on December 3, 2015, counsel for the appellant, Chinonye Obiagwu, who appeared with Melissa Omene, adopted the brief of argument filed on October 4, 2012. He relied on the arguments therein in urging the Court to allow the appeal. On his part, counsel for the respondent, Gboyega Oyewole, who appeared with A. O. Adeyemi -Tuki (Mrs), DPP, Ondo State and A.A. Oladunmiye, PLO, Ministry of Justice, Ondo State, adopted the brief of argument filed on February 12, 2012 in arguing that the appeal, being unmeritorious, should be dismissed.

My Lords, for reasons that would be made obvious anon, the only live issue in this appeal is the first issue. In the first place, it is not possible to wish away the fact that the Lower Court made a specific finding on the crux of the complaint with regard to issue two:

an issue which was, extensively, argued on pages 11 – 17 of the appellant’s brief of argument.