Ilouno v. State (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant was arraigned before the trial court on 9/10/2014, for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to sections 6(b) and 2(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act respectively.

A trial-within-trial was conducted to ascertain the voluntariness of his confessional statement, which the court subsequently admitted as exhibit H. At the end of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal to the lower court was dismissed, hence this appeal. The appellant has distilled these issues for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence before the court linking the appellant with the commission of the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery to warrant the affirmation of his conviction by the court below?
2. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeal properly held the appellant’s conviction after evaluating the evidence on record of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which was materially contradictory, inconsistent and mysterious?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, based on the materially contradictory inconsistencies, manifestly unreliable evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and inadmissible exhibits B, B1, B2, G12 – G15 and exhibit H?

The respondent has framed a sole issue for determination:

Whether or not, the lower court rightly affirmed the decision of the trial court which convicted and sentenced the appellant on the two count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted robbery.

Issue for determination:

I shall adopt the respondent’s issue for the determination of this appeal.

Whether or not, the lower court rightly affirmed the decision of the trial court which convicted and sentenced the appellant on the two count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted robbery.

The learned counsel to the appellant has submitted that the identification of the appellant by the PW3 is fundamentally flawed and contradictory while the witness or evidence of PW1 and PW2 is clearly not credible to sustain the conviction of the appellant.

It is further submitted that exhibits B, B1, B2, G12 – G15, which are guns and cartridges recovered are inadmissible as they were not subjected to fingerprint test to verify if they were touched by the appellant to link them to the appellant, while exhibit H being involuntary is inadmissible. He therefore asked this court to allow the appeal.

The submission of the respondent’s learned counsel is that the appellant was convicted because of the direct eye witness evidence of PW3, the appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit H); corroborating evidence of PW1 and PW2 and exhibits A, B, B1-B2, C, E, G1-G2, G3, that proved the elements of the crime the appellant was charged with.

Where the accused person has denied the commission of a crime, it is bounden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person by:

(1) Direct evidence

(2) Confessional statement/statements made by the accused, and