Lekan Olaoye V The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos division (“The lower Court” for short) delivered on the 16th day of May, 2014 which affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State High Court (Trial Court) delivered on 13th December, 2007.

The appellant herein who was the 1st accused person at the trial Court, was charged along with three other co-accused persons before the trial Court on offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, murder and receiving stolen goods, contrary to Sections 403A, 402(2) (A), 319(1) and 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 32, Vol.2 Laws of Lagos State of 1994. In proof of the case, the prosecution (now respondent) called three witnesses and tendered eight (8) exhibits, while the 1st accused/appellant did not call any witness but testified on his behalf. During the trial, the prosecution sought to tender a confessional statement which it alleged was voluntarily made by the accused/appellant but the defence objected to the admissibility of the said confessional statement on the ground that it was not made

1

voluntarily by the accused/appellant. As is the law, the trial Court conducted trial within trial in order to determine the voluntariness of the said confessional statement. At the end of the mini-trial, the Court held that the statement was made voluntarily and admitted it in evidence and marked it as Exhibit H. The trial thereafter proceeded in earnest and in the end the trial Court found or held that the prosecution/respondent had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and the three other co-accused persons committed all the offences as charged and convicted them accordingly.

Miffed by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (the lower or Court below), albeit, without success. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below affirming the conviction and sentence passed on him by the trial Court the appellant further appealed to this Court.

The case of the prosecution was that on the 9th of December, 2000, the deceased late Chief Layi Balogun arrived at Muritala Muhammad International Airport from Abuja at around 3.30pm after which he, in company of his security detail, one Sgt Olajide Longe,

2

Ieft for his (deceased’s) office situate at No.1, Balogun Street, Oregun, Ikeja Lagos. The security detail was in mufti. Then at about 9.00pm both of them left the office for the deceased’s residence at No.26, Oluwole Street, Akoka along with the deceased’s driver.

On approaching his residence, the gate was opened when the deceased and his security detail were accosted by five unknown armed men who fired gun shots towards the chest of the security detail. Thereafter, the deceased, the security detail and other members of his family were taken hostage by the five gun-men. After about ten to fifteen minutes later, both the deceased i.e Chief Balogun and the security detail were shot after which the gun-men carted away with the deceased’s cell phone, omega wrist watch and a sum of N20,000.00 and fled the scene of the crime. The Chief and the security detail were later rushed to hospital where the former passed on.

After filing this appeal before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellant, in keeping with the practice and rules of this Court, prepared his brief of argument and served same on the respondent. The Appellant’s brief of argument settled

3

by F. Ajibola Dalley Esq, was filed on behalf of the appellant on 13th July 2017. In the said brief of argument, three issues were identified for the determination of this appeal which are set out hereunder:-

1. Whether the eminent justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding admissible Exhibit H, the purported confessional statement of the appellant predominantly relied on in convicting the appellant of the charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and murder same having been established to have been obtained under duress (Grounds 1 and 2)
2. Whether the eminent justices of the Court of Appeal were right in relying exclusively on the challenged evidence presented by the prosecution without taking cognisance of the case presented by the Defence (Grounds 3 and 4).
3. Whether the eminent justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the trial Court rightly admitted the challenged evidence of the Prosecution witnesses without furnishing or stating any reasons whatsoever for arriving at such findings and conclusion (Ground 5).

Upon being served with the appellant’s brief of argument, the learned counsel for the<br< p=””