Major I. O. Amachree V. Nigerian Army (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A.

T The appellant Major I.O. Amachree, an officer in the Directorate of Army Policy and Plans, Army Headquarters, Lagos, was the second accused person, arraigned before the General Court Martial (GCM for short) in this matter charged with the following offences:-

(a) Statement of Offence:

Conspiracy, contrary to section 114(1) of the Armed Forces Decree, 1993, No. 105 and punishable under section 516, Criminal Code Cap. 77, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Particulars of Offence:

In that he, on or about 1996, at Lagos, together with one Zamani Karfa, conspired to cheat one Mr. Jude of No.30 Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island, of the sum of One hundred and Ninety thousand Naira (N190,000.00) on the pre of being members of the Task Force on Trade Malpractices.

(b) Statement of Offence:

Cheating contrary to section 113(1) of the Armed Forces Decree, 1993 No. 105.

Particulars of Offence:

In that, he on or about 1996, at Lagos, together with Zamani Karfa cheated one Mr. Jude of No.30, Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island, of the sum of One hundred and Ninety thousand Naira (N190,000.00) on the pre of being member of the Task Force on Trade Malpractices.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge. Evidence was led by the prosecution in proof of the offences. The appellant’s confessional statement was tendered and admitted in evidence after a trial, within trial as exhibit AZ. The appellant testified in his defence and called no witness.

The General Court Martial found for the prosecution and convicted the appellant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years on each of the two counts of the charge to run concurrently.

Aggrieved, by the decision, the appellant appealed against the whole decision to this court on a notice of appeal, containing five grounds of appeal. The parties have in compliance with the rules of this court, filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. Three issues for determination were formulated by the appellant in his brief of argument filed in this matter and they are as follows:-

“1. Having regard to the prosecution case inclusive of evidence led, could the prosecution be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?