Mindi V. State (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting at Makurdi, delivered on 25th April, 2018 wherein the appeal against the appellant’s conviction by the Benue State High Court for conspiracy and armed robbery was dismissed. The appellant and his co- accused Agber Hueza were initially charged along with others, to wit: Terzingwe alias Love Fela and another person at large for the offences of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery punishable with death under Sections 1(2) (b) and 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. 2010. However,the prosecution proceeded against the Appellant and his co-accused, Agber Hueza when the other accused persons could not be found in respect of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of heads of Charge for the offences of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery punishable with death.

The Appellant and Agber Hueza who were tried together, were discharged and acquitted on the 2nd head of charge for want of proof, but were found guilty of the 1st and 3rd heads of charge, and were consequently convicted and sentenced to death.

1

Dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the appellant appealed to the lower Court which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial judge.

Again, the Appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He has accordingly appealed to this Court.

The meat of the case against the appellant and his co-travelers is that on or about 24/9/2012, they conspired with some other persons who are still at large, at various times while armed with offensive weapons, along Vandeikya – Adikpo and Jato – Aka – Katsina – Ala roads, robbed Alhaji Sejir Mohammed Labaran and lieh Basil of their possessions including various sums of money, phones etc. The defence put up by the appellant and his co-accused was a total denial of the respective allegations. After investigation, the matter went for trial.

Notice of appeal in this matter was filed on 15th May, 2018 which contains six grounds of appeal out of which the appellant has distilled three issues for the determination of this appeal.

In the appellant’s brief settled by Edwin O. Okoro, Esq., and filed on 5th July, 2018, the three issues formulated by the

2

appellant are listed on page 3 of the said brief as follows:

1. Whether the Court below was right to have affirmed that the trial Court was right to have admitted in evidence Exhibits A1 and B1 the extra judicial statements of the respective Appellant and co-accused at the trial-within-trial on the main ground that they did not raise the voluntariness of their statements with their counsel or any other person while in police custody.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the prosecution had proved the 1st and 3rd heads of charge beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and co-accused in the circumstances of the case and that there were no contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed that the trial Court was right to have used and relied on the alleged confessional statements (exhibits A1 and B1) while convicting the Appellant and co-accused of conspiracy and armed robbery on the 1st and 3rd heads of charge when the said Exhibits do not have any link at all with 1st and 3rd heads of the charge.

3

The learned counsel for the Respondent, Eko Ejembi Eko, Esq., distilled two issues for determination. The two issues are as hereunder stated:-

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division were right to have affirmed the decision of the learned trial Judge admitting the Appellant’s extra judicial statements – Exhibits A1 as evidence and treated same as confessional Statement inspite of the fact that same were (sic) retracted by the Appellant.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal Makurdi Division were right to have affirmed the decision of the learned trial Judge that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant as to warrant the Appellant’s conviction for the offences charged having to the totality of evidence the Court.

​