Muritala Ibrahim V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court Lagos delivered on the 9th November, 2012 by HON. JUSTICE, R. N. OFILI – AJUMOGOBIA wherein the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for dealing in cannabis sativa otherwise known as Marijuana. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court were simply that the Appellant was arraigned before the trial Court on one count charge for dealing in Cannabis sativa which read as follows:

“That you MURITALA IBRAHIM, Adult, Male on or about the 4th day of July, 2012 at Ipodo street in lkeja Area of Lagos State within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court without lawful authority dealt in 350 grams of cannabis sativa (otherwise known as marijuana) a narcotic drug similar to Cocaine, Heroine, LSD e.t.c and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 11 (c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, CAP N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”

The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge but the prosecution proceeded to present evidence. One witness testified for the

prosecution and tendered Exhibits PW1-8 without objection. He was not cross examined. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 4/12/12 and filed on the 4/12/12 setting out 3 grounds of appeal.

The Appellant filed his Appellant’s brief dated 9th day of January 2013 and filed on the same day. The Respondent’s brief was filed on the 1st of August 2013 and it is dated 29th,?July 2013. Both briefs were adopted at the hearing of this appeal. The Appellant in the said brief distilled a sole issue for determination thus:

“Whether from the facts of this case, the complainant proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Respondent on its part reframed the sole issue put forward by the Appellant in the following way:

“Whether the conviction and sentence of the Appellant was proper and justifiable in law having regards to what transpired at the trial and as reflected in the record of proceedings.”

Both sides proffered arguments in support of the sole issue formulated for determination in this

appeal. The Court shall adopt the sole issue distilled by the Appellant in order to resolve his complaint exhaustively.

The argument of the Appellant is that the guilt of the Appellant was not established by the prosecution which led the Court to hold as follows:

“The prosecution has reviewed the facts before the Court and shown to Court that the about 350 grams of weeds were dealt with the applicant. However, they have failed to establish the manner in which the applicant dealt in the weed which has inter tested (sic) and found to be offending during the cannabis sativa (sic)”.

According to the Appellant, his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. He cited Section 11(c) of the NDLEA Act. The Appellant submitted that the purpose for which the weed was in the possession of the Appellant was not proved as the trial Court in its judgment said thus: