Idowu Okanlawon V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta Judicial Division, the appellant as 2nd accused was charged with the following offences:

Count 1- That you, Lukman Olufeko (M), Idowu Okanlawon (M), Akeem Jimoh (M), Isikilu Olanipekun (M) and others now at large on or about the 18th day of August 2002 at Ewi’s compound, Oke-Efon area of Abeokuta in the Abeokuta Judicial Division conspired together to commit a felony to wit:

Armed Robbery contrary to section 5(b) and punishable under section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provisions) Act (cap 398) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as amended by the Tribunals(Certain Consequential Amendments etc) Act, 1999.

Count II- That you, Lukman Olufeko (M), Idowu Okanlawon (M), Akeem Jimoh (M), Isikilu Olanipekun (M) and others now at large on or about the the day 18th day of August, 2002 at Ewi’s compound, Oke-Efon area of Abeokuta in the Abeokuta Judicial Division while armed with firearms to wit: guns and other offensive weapons did rob one Evangelist Oluseye Ogunremi of a Nokia mobile handset and Sagem mobile handset valued at N65000.00 and a cash of N80,000.00 and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act (cap 398) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as amended by (Certain Consequential Amendments etc) Act, 1999.

They all pleaded not guilty to the two count charge and were tried, convicted and each sentenced to death, It is against this conviction and sentence that the 2nd accused person Idowu Okanlawon is appealing against. The case for the prosecution was that on the 18th day of August, 2002 the appellant, and three accused persons whose names are contained in the charge and others still at large armed with firearms to wit: Guns and other offensive weapons conspired together and robbed one Evangelist Seye Ogunremi (PW2) of a Nokia mobile handset and a Sagem mobile handset all valued at N65,000.00 and a cash sum of N80,000,00. Prosecution called 9(nine) witnesses in proof of its case.

While appellant Idowu Okanlawon gave evidence on his own behalf. It was alleged by PW2 the complainant that in the course of the robbery operation, the 4th accused used an iron on his (PW2’s) head and asked him to lie down. The robbers were holding guns and cutlasses and after a search of his house, they left with N80,000.00 and two handsets a Nokia and Sagem. It is the prosecution’s case that one Bola Alausa an electronic repairer (PW1) was approached by the 1st accused person to look for a buyer or himself buy the handsets. 1st Accused neither knew the numbers of the handsets nor had a receipt of purchase of them and a request that they be sold for a mere N3,000.00 aroused PW1’s suspicion and in the course of operating the handsets PW2 answered revealing all the details of the armed robbery attack on him by the accused persons which eventually led to the arrest of the 1st accused who revealed the identities of the other accused persons including the appellant as his partners in crime on the day of the incident which led to the arrest, prosecution conviction and sentence of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused persons.

This appeal is with respect to the 2nd accused person only and will simply be referred to as the appellant.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal dated the 30th June, 2005.

Having sought and obtained leave of this court appellant filed an amended notice of appeal on 20/3/12 and same was deemed properly filed on 26/3/2012.The amended notice of appeal contained five grounds of appeal.

The appellant in his brief of argument dated 15/01/08 and filed on 16/01/08 but deemed properly filed on 20/11/08 formulated five issues for the determination of this court. The issues are:-

(i) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that:-

“This case does not require an identification parade. The 2nd PW right from the beginning said he could recognize each of the accused persons because his light was on……” (See page 40 lines 36 to 37 of the Records).

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have convicted on the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant without more.