Mu’azu V. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division hereinafter referred to as the Court below as contained in the judgment of their Lordships, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, (JCA), Amina Audi Wambai (JCA) and Obietanbara Daniel-Kalio (JCA), delivered by her Lordship Amina Audi Wambai JCA on the 31st January, 2018 affirming the conviction and sentences of the Appellant for the offences of rape and acts of gross indecency in the judgment of the trial Court, which was the High Court of Justice Jigawa State, sitting in Ringim presided over by Hon. Justice Abubakar M. Sambo delivered on the 16th day of March, 2017.

Dissatisfied with the said decision of the Court below, the Appellant filled a notice of appeal dated 12th day of February, 2018 containing 11 grounds of appeal urging this Court to acquit and discharge the Appellant.

The facts found and affirmed by both lower Courts are as follows:

The two counts charge against the Appellant before the trial Court are rape contrary to the provisions of Section 282 (1) (e) of the Penal Code Law, Cap. P3, Laws of Jigawa State, Volume 3, 2012 as well as the offence of the act of gross indecency contrary to the provisions of Section 285 of the Penal Code Law, Cap. P3, Laws of Jigawa State, Volume 3, 2012.

​The Respondent called four (4) witnesses who testified as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively. The Complainant, Asisa Sirajo, testified as P.W.1. She was seven (7) years old when she gave evidence. The incident happened a year before when she was six years old. After supplying satisfactory answers to preliminary questions placed before her on her education, knowledge about God, the performance of religious rites, the hereafter as well as her parents, the Court decided that she was fully aware of the consequences of her testimony and allowed her to give evidence. The trial Court was satisfied that she understood and knew the nature of an oath in accordance to the provisions of Section 209 of the Evidence Act. She testified that she knew the Appellant and that on the day in question, while she was baking clay in the company of her relatives including Walid, Kadija, Fati, Ummi and Hauwa. While her sisters were inside the house of one Sadiya, the Appellant called her to collect an iron material from an uncompleted building. She also testified that after she entered the uncompleted building, the Appellant who had followed her there pinned her down and inserted his penis into her vagina and her mouth. She further testified that when she shouted for help, one Abba came to the scene of crime and saw them. He then ran to inform her mother. After the Appellant saw Abba, he threw her out of the uncompleted building. The testimony of P.W.1 under cross-examination remained unshaken. She further testified under cross-examination that the Appellant told her that if she refused to follow his instruction to fetch him the iron in the building, he would beat her.

Musa, also known as Abba who testified as P.W.2 was an eye witness to the crime and he testified as a ten (10) year old. The trial Court also satisfied itself that he knew the nature of an oath. P.W.2 swore that he saw the Appellant pin down P.W.1 and sexually assaulted her in the uncompleted building. His evidence was unshaken and he maintained that he was at the scene of crime. P.W.3 was the complainant’s father who reported to the Village Head, who in turn reported to the Police. The medical report and the hospital prescription card of the complainant were tendered as Exhibits A & B respectively. P.W.4, the I.P.O took the confessional statement of the Appellant, the Hausa version and English translation were admitted as Exhibits D1 & D2 respectively.

Learned Appellant’s Counsel in the brief settled by Garba Abubakar Esq. identified a sole issue for determination to wit:

1. Whether having regards to the applicable laws vis-a-vis the facts before it, the lower Court was right in dismissing the appeal and went ahead to affirm the conviction and sentences of the Appellant as entered by the trial Court on the two-count charge against the Appellant.

In the Respondent’s brief settled by Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, Hon. Attorney General of Jigawa State, two issues were identified for the determination of this appeal as set out below:

1. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offences of rape and act of gross indecency as well as holding that the proceedings before the trial Court was procedurally valid with evidence properly evaluated.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that trial Court has accorded the Appellant his right of fair hearing.

I will adopt the sole issue for determination as identified by the Appellant’s counsel.

Learned Appellant’s counsel’s main complaint is against a supposed procedural irregularity during the course of the trial. The Complaint is that the learned trial Judge who was sitting at Ringim Judicial division and who started hearing the case at Ringim unilaterally transferred the case to Dutse where he was mandated to serve as vacation Judge in order to complete the trial.

I agree with the Hon. Attorney General of Jigawa State that it is now trite that where a Judge seats in two different divisions in determining the same cause, such a move is a mere administrative issue which cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Court. See ITAYE V. EKAIDERE (1978) LPELR-1558 (SC), see also EGBO V. AGBARA (1997) LPELR-1036 (SC) where this Court stated per Iguh JSC as follows:

“… A Judge of a State High Court having jurisdiction in one of the Judicial Divisions of that State does not lose the jurisdiction to sit and adjudicate on a matter by the mere fact of his transfer to another Judicial Division of the same State. I also agree that issues of Judicial Divisions, transfer order and like matters being strictly administrative, do not go to jurisdiction…”

In fact, in the circumstances of this case, Hon. Justice Abubakar M. Sambo should be commended and not vilified for His Lordship’s initiative to ensure speedy dispensation of justice in a criminal matter. Thus, there was no want of fair hearing in the manner the proceedings at each date of adjournment were conducted either at Ringim or Dutse since at no time was evidence led in the absence of the Appellant and/or his Counsel.