Haruna Ibrahim v. The State (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Judicial Division in appeal No. CA/J/1351C/2018 delivered on 20th December, 2019 wherein the Court of Appeal in a lead judgment delivered by honourable Justice Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi JCA, dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

The facts of the matter which culminated in this appeal are that the appellant on suspicion of being part of a vigilante group who had abducted one Alhaji Bello Maikarfi (“the deceased”) and later killed him, was arrested by the Nigerian Police.

The appellant along with 6 others was subsequently arraigned before Hon. Justice A. H. Suleiman of the High Court of Justice, Bauchi on a two-count charge of criminal conspiracy contrary to section 97 of the Penal Code and Culpable Homicide contrary to section 211 of the Penal Code.

The appellant was however only charged in count one with the offence of conspiracy contrary to section 97 of the Penal Code thus:

Count one

That you Abubakar Musa of Karim Lamido L.G.A. of Taraba State. Shuaibu Chiroma of Karim Lamido L.G.A. of Taraba State, Haruna Ibrahim of Kuka Village in Alkaleri L.G.A, Sanusi Hassan of Yelo Village in Alkaleri L.G.A, Lamko Ahmadu of Kuka Village in Gwana Alkaleri L.G.A, Sale Usman Yelo Village in Alkaleri L.G.A, Abubakar Adamu of Yelo Village in Alkaleri L.G.A on 29/11/15 at about 17.00 hrs or thereabout in Garin Sambo via Yalo in Alkaleri L.G.A within the jurisdiction of this honourable court did conspire between yourselves to commit culpable homicide by abducting one Alh. Bello Maikarfi of Garin Sambo via yalo in Alkaleri L.G.A. where you took him to kan dutse in Karim Lamido and killed him thereby committed an offence of conspiracy contrary to section 97 of the Penal Code and triable by this honourable court

Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge in a judgment delivered on 29th January 2018, discharged and acquitted the appellant of the crime charged. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the respondent herein as appellant in the lower court appealed to the Court of Appeal (hereinafter “lower court”), and in a judgment delivered on 20th December, 2019, its appeal was allowed and the lower court consequently made an order for the re-arrest and arraignment of the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the appellant appealed the judgment vide an amended notice of appeal dated 18th July, 2024 filed and serve on 4th October, 2024, but deemed as properly filed on 7th November 2024, with one ground of appeal.

The appellant’s amended brief of argument is dated 18th July, 2024 and filed on 4th October, 2024 but deemed as properly filed and served on 7th November, 2024. Appellant’s counsel distilled one issue for determination thus:

Whether the order of the lower court contained in its judgment of 20th December, 2019 directing the re-arrest and arraignment of the appellant before another High Court Judge in Bauchi after setting aside the judgment of the trial court does not violate the appellant’s constitutional right enshrined in section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (Sole ground)

The respondent’s amended brief of argument is dated and filed on 31st October, 2024 but deemed as properly filed and served on 7th November, 2024. Learned counsel for respondent adopted the sole issue as formulated by the appellant’s counsel.

A careful examination of the sole issue presented to this court by the appellant’s counsel vis-a-vis the facts that culminated in this appeal reveals that the issue is apt, and the appeal will be determined on the issue.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant who had been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for criminal conspiracy and was discharged and acquitted by the trial court ought not to be tried again for the same criminal offence for which he had been tried, discharged and acquitted, particularly when the lower court did not come to the conclusion nor did it specifically hold as required by law that the proceeding of the trial court leading to the acquittal was a nullity, but the lower court set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence placed before it.