Maleek Atanda Kazeem V. The State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI (PJ) Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MALEEK ATANDA KAZEEM – Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE – Respondent(s)

The appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment by the High Court of Justice of Kwara State sitting at Ilorin (the court below) for the offence of belonging to, or engaging in, or associating with a secret cult or society called the Eiye confraternity under sections 7 (1) (2) and 11 (1) of the Secret Cults and Secret Societies in Educational Institutions (Prohibition) Law (CAP. 53), contained in volume 4 of the Laws of Kwara State, with commencement date on 23/4/04; giving rise to the present appeal.

Sketchily stated, the appellant was at all material times a student of Physical and Health Education at the University of Ilorin in Kwara State. He was arrested on accusation of robbing a female student of the same university of a mobile phone (hand-set) at gun point in the night of 18.6.04. In the course of police investigation, the appellant confessed his membership of a secret cult or society called the Eiye Confraternity with operational base in the said university.

The appellant was, subsequently, put on trial for the offences of armed robbery and belonging to a secret cult or society. The offence of armed robbery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It collapsed. Appellant was acquitted and discharged of it. However, the court below relied on the confessional statements of the appellant to convict and sentence him on 19.8.05, for the offence of membership of a secret society or cult named the Eiye confraternity.

The appellant could not appeal within the statutory period. He sought for an extension of time to appeal on a motion dated and filed on his behalf by his learned counsel on 4.2.08, which was granted by this court on 2.3.09, and the notice of appeal conveying two grounds of appeal was deemed filed on the same 2.3.09. Three issues for determination were formulated from the two grounds of appeal. When the attention of the appellant’s learned counsel, Mr. Sulu-Gambari, was drawn to the impropriety of formulating issues for determination in excess of the grounds of appeal, on the hearing of the appeal on 10.10.2011, appellant’s learned counsel took the hint and abandoned issue C of the issues for determination which was struck out in consequence.

The survived issues (A) and (B) of the appellant’s issues for determination are, for ease of reference, reproduced below:

“ISSUE A:-

Was the Trial Judge right and not in grave error leading to miscarriage of justice by his refusal to conduct trial within trial on the alleged statements of the appellant before making use of same to arrive at his judgment.