Lawal Abubakar (Dan Lawal) V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant, along with four other accused persons, was arraigned before the High Court of Katsina State on two charges of armed robbery and culpable homicide punishable under Section 1 (2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (special Provisions) Act cap R11 LFN 2004 and Section 221 of the Penal code cap 95 Laws of Katsina State 1991.

The allegation was that they, on or about the 11th day of October 2012, in the company of others at large, while armed with sticks and matchets attacked and wounded two security guards at Mangal Plaza, Yahaya Madaki Way, Kofar Kaura Katsina and burgled the shop of one Alhaji Babangida Ali, removing GSM sets valued at about Three Million Naira and the sum of N352,000 (Three Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Naira). One of the guards attacked, unfortunately died.

The prosecution called 10 witnesses. All the accused persons testified in their defence. Upon conclusion of trial, all accused persons were convicted under both charges and sentenced to death by hanging by the trial judge, Hon. Justice Abdullahi Yusuf. This appeal by the 4th accused,

1

containing 9 grounds, is against his conviction and sentence.

Parties, in compliance with the rules of Court, filed their respective briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal , no counsel appeared for the parties. Their Briefs of Arguments were accordingly deemed duly argued pursuant to Order 18 Rule 9 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.

The Appellant’s Brief, settled by J.J Usman Esq. of Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN) & Co, filed on 1lth November 2014, raised 5 issues for the Court’s determination, which issues were also adopted by the Respondent’s Counsel, Murtala Aliyu Kankia, the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Ministry of Justice Katsina State in the Respondent’s Brief filed on 12th March 2015.

The issues formulated are the following:

1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right when His Lordship admitted and relied on Exhibit D and D1 in holding that the Appellant committed the offence of armed robbery and culpable homicide punishable with death and thereby convicted him and sentenced him to death.
2. Whether the Learned Trial chief Judge was right when His Lordship held

2

that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.

3. Whether the Learned Trial Chief Judge was right when His Lordship held that the Appellant actually intended to cause the deceased’s death thereby convicted the Appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced him to death.
4. Whether the Learned Trial chief Judge was right when His Lordship held that failure of the Prosecution to tender all the confessional statements of the Appellant was not fatal to the Prosecution’s case.
5. Whether the trial Judge was right when he held that PW8 was not a tainted witness.

I shall subsume these issues under two issues, namely:

1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to admit and rely on Exhibit D and D1, the confessional statement of the Appellant.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial Court to justify the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

Issue 1

Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to admit and rely on Exhibit D and D1, the