Iniabasi Okon Uweh V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo for a charge of robbery contrary to Section 402 of the Criminal Code, Cap 31, Vol. 2, Laws of Cross River State applicable to Akwa Ibom State. The charge alleged that on or about the 4th day of April, 1999 at No. 145, Aka Road, Uyo, the Appellant in company of other persons at large and armed with offensive weapons, to wit; local pistols, robbed Bafil Company (Nig) Ltd. of the sum of N2,184,023.00.

The prosecution had called three (3) witnesses in proof of the charge and the Appellant testified and called a witness to defend the charge. At the end of the trial, the High Court found the Appellant guilty in the judgment delivered on the 31/5/2007 against which the present appeal was filed, and sentenced him to fourteen (14) years imprisonment.

The notice and grounds of the appeal dated and filed on the 24/8/07, contained four (4) grounds of appeal. With the leave of the court, an amended notice of appeal dated the 10/12/10 was deemed to have been properly filed on the 12/5/2011. The amended notice of appeal contains five (5) grounds of appeal from which the learned counsel for the Appellant had distilled three (3) issues for determination in the Appellant’s brief filed on 10/2/11 but deemed filed on the same date with the amended notice of appeal; i.e. 12/5/2011 appeal. They are as follows:

1. Whether the trial court was right in placing reliance on the confessional statement to convict the accused? (distilled from ground 1)
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in relying upon the evidence of PW3 being hearsay evidence? (distilled from ground 2)
3. Whether the prosecution had proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the fact that the only eye witness PW2, was motivated by malice and the manifest contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution? (distilled from grounds 3, 4 and 5).

Similar issues were raised at page 3 of the Respondent’s brief filed on the 5/3/12 and deemed filed on the date of the oral hearing of the appeal; the 6/11/12. They are in the following terms:-

1. Whether the trial court was right in placing reliance on the Appellant’s confessional statement to convict the Appellant.
2. Whether or not the evidence of PW3 was hearsay evidence.
3. Whether the prosecution had proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution.

At the hearing, Mr. Iniabasi Udobong, Esq. counsel who settled the Appellant’s brief adopted it as his submissions in support of the appeal and urged us to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court and enter an order discharging and acquitting the Appellant of the charge he was convicted of.

Mr. Samuel Akpabio, Esq., who appeared for the Respondent adopted and relied on the Respondent’s brief in urging us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the High Court.

Since the issues formulated by the learned counsel in their respective briefs are similar in form and the same in substance, I intend to use the ones submitted in the Appellant’s brief for the determination of the appeal.

ISSUE NO.1

The learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted on the issue that the

Appellant had at the trial, vehemently challenged the confessional statements credited to him and admitted as Exhibits 7.7a, 7b, 7c, 11, 11a,11b and J on the ground that he was shot on his feet by the police and therefore forced to sign them. That the said statements were not voluntarily made by the Appellant. Learned counsel had referred to the evidence of the Appellant at page 58 of the record of the appeal and that of PW1 under cross examination, at page 78 of the record of the appeal in support of the submission. It was his further submission that the PW1 had stated that he did not recover anything to show that the confession was true or that he investigated the truth of the confession. In further argument, counsel said PW2 who was the only eye witness did not mention anything about the other members of staff who were alleged in the Appellant’s confession to be with him at the time the offence was committed and that PW2 and the Appellant were not in good terms. According to him, the High Court despite the denial by the Appellant that the statements were not made by him, the High Court relied solely on them to convict the Appellant, relying on the finding by the court in the judgment, particularly at pages 26 and 27 of the record of the appeal and contending that the law is that an accused was to deny his statement at the defence stage. He cited the case of Eguabor v. Queen (No.1) (1962) 1 SCNLR, 409 at 410, for the argument and said the Appellant did the proper thing when he denied making the statements during his defence.

In addition, it was submitted that the High Court should have conducted a trial within trial to determine the voluntariness of the confessional statement, on the authority of Odidi Ozo v. State (1987) 2 NSCC, 1239 at 1246, 1247 and 1249 – 50, passages of which were set out by learned counsel. The case of Gbadamosi v. State (1992) 3 NSCC 439 was also cited and we were urged to hold that failure by the High Court to hold a trial within trial before admitting and relying on the confessional statements had occasioned injustice to the Appellant.

Learned counsel said because the people named in the confessional statement to have participated in the robbery did not give evidence at the trial, there was no corroboration of the confession. Although conceding to the law that a confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground a conviction once the court is satisfied with its truth, as matter of practice, the courts usually require some evidence outside the confessional statement which makes it probable that it was true. He said in determining the truth and veracity of the confession, the court must be satisfied that it passes the following tests before relying solely on it to convict the accused person:-

a) Whether there is evidence outside the confessional statement to show that it is true;