Ikye Eze V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On 18th May, 2015, the Appellant was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Yola on a one-count charge of unlawful possession of Tramadol, a substance similar to Cocaine, under Section 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap. N30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 dated 11th May, 2015. The charge read thus:

?That you Ikye Eze, male, adult, 35 years old on or about the 2nd May, 2015 at Gunure village, Mayo Belwa LGA of Adamawa State within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court without lawful authority knowingly possess 3 kilograms of Tramadol a narcotic analgesic drug similar to cocaine and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.?

When the charge was read and explained to the Appellant, he pleaded guilty as charged. However, before the lower Court took any further step, the prosecution, in line with Law, adduced evidence through one witness to establish that the substance found in the possession

1

of the Appellant was indeed a narcotic. Thereafter, the trial Court adopted the summary trial procedure to convict the Appellant on his guilty plea and sentenced him to a term of two years imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant filed an Appeal against his conviction on 08-06-15 vide his Notice and Grounds of Appeal, wherein he complained on one ground. The substance of his complaint is that the trial Court erred in law when it convicted him on the basis of his guilty plea and the facts presented when there was no expert evidence for relying on the evidence of the PW1, which he claimed, was inadmissible.

?On the basis of this Appeal, both parties filed their respective Briefs of argument on 21-09-15 and 06-11-15 respectively, which Briefs were deemed duly filed and served on 15-02-16. Thus, on 15-02-16, when the Appeal was called up for hearing, both the Appellant?s Counsel, M.A. Vasumu (Mrs.) holding the brief of Evaristus Paul Esq., and the Respondent?s Counsel, B.S. Abdullahi Esq., officer in charge of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, Adamawa State Command, adopted their respective Briefs of argument. While,

2

learned Counsel for the Appellant urged the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial Court, learned Counsel for the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court.

Both parties in their respective Briefs of argument distilled one lone issue each from the sole ground for the determination of the Appeal, which issues are identical in content with only slight variations. Thus, the issue as distilled by the Appellant is adopted in determining the Appeal. It states thus:

Whether by virtue of the Law the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

?The Appellant, in his Brief of argument which was settled by U.B. Ismaila Esq, submits that the lower Court erred in law when it relied on the guilty plea of the Appellant, in conjunction with the evidence of the PW1, to convict him of the charge. He submits that by Section 19 of the NDLEA Act, 2004 under which he was charged, the prosecution is under a duty to lead evidence to prove the following essential elements:

1. That the substance is actually Tramadol of a

3