Joseph Olanrewaju V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant herein and one other were arraigned before the High Court of Kwara State (corum A. S. Oyinloye, J) on a two count charge of conspiracy and armed robbery. The Court, after taking evidence rejected the defence of the appellant, found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death on both counts of conspiracy and armed robbery pursuant to sections 6(a) and 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2004 respectively on 4th October 2013.

The appellant’s disinclination with both convictions and sentences lead to this appeal initiated by filing of a notice predicated upon three main grounds and an omnibus ground as hereunder reproduced:

1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the offence of criminal conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the appellant of armed robbery based on the evidence of a co-accused person.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law when he delivered a ruling in the trial within trial in the absence of the appellant.
4. The judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having records to the evidence at the trial.

From the foregoing grounds, the appellant raised the following three issues for determination:

(a) Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial court, conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. (Ground 1)

(b) Whether the written statement of a co-accused person could be employed to convict the appellant who has not adopted such statement as his. (Ground 2)

(c) Whether criminal trial could be carried on in the absence in the absence of an accused person who has not been excused from the proceedings of the court. (Ground 3)

The learned Attorney-General of Kwara State Kamaldeen Ajibade adopted the same issues for determination as raised by the appellant. Arguments on the three issues have been analytically appraised.

Issue One

Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial court, conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant I. AbdulAzeez, Esq. argued that the conviction for the offence of conspiracy is unsustainable against the appellant as the learned trial judge unduly relied on the purported confessional statements of the appellant and his accomplice, exhibits 11 and 12, in finding the appellant guilty of conspiracy. The learned trial judge observed thus:

“The law is that a man’s confession is only evidence against him and not against his accomplices and it is a misdirection that may lead to the quashing of the conviction made if a trial court fails to appreciate that position of the law.”

The learned trial judge went further, in the judgment, stating as follows:

“I have carefully read exhibits 11 and 12, which are the 2 confessional statements made by 1st and 2nd accused persons respectively. They contain confessions that implicated each other…. Exhibit 11, on a cursory look implicated the 2nd accused person while exhibit 12 implicated the 1st accused person but that is not the end of the case. The 2 exhibits contain … admission (by each accused person) that frontally established the fact that (each) accused person was involved in the same robbery.” (See pages 112 to 113 of the record).