Musa Abdulmumini V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

Several persons were arraigned before and tried at the Federal High Court Jos, for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts punishable under Section 5 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, LFN 2004; illegal possession of firearms punishable under Section 5 of the same Criminal Code Act, and the commission of terrorist acts punishable under Section 15(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004. The alleged criminal acts were committed on or about the 8th day of March, 2008 in and around Jos and its environs, including Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State. The appellant featured in the first and third charges, which respectively accused him and others of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and committing terrorist acts. In these two charges he was the 7th and 9th Accused in the 1st and 3rd charges respectively. All the accused persons, including the appellant herein, were convicted for the two offences alleged in the 1st and 3rd charges. They were each sentenced to 2 years and 10 years imprisonment for committing the said offences of criminal

1

conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and the commission of terrorist acts respectively.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal sitting at Jos. He was unsuccessful. The said Lower Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed on him by the trial Federal High Court. He has further appealed to this Court.

The issues submitted for the determination of this further appeal from the two grounds of appeal turn largely on facts. The issues are –

“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the prosecution had proved the 3 offences with which the appellant was charged beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal do not have a duty, ex debito justitae, to evaluate the evidence led by the appellant fully by way of re-hearing where the trial Court had failed to do so”.

My Lords, prefatorily, let me re-state the policy of this Court on concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the intermediate Court. That is: this Court will, ordinarily, not interfere with

2

concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the intermediate Court, unless it is shown that such concurrent findings of fact are perverse. This is the established attitude of this Court in both criminal and civil appeals, as can be seen from the decisions of this Court (just to mention a few) in DAN AWAZA BASHAYA & ORS. v. THE STATE (1998) 4 SC 199; (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.550) 351; A. OLA YESUFU v. ROBINSON OLUSEYI ADAMA (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) 522 SC; ELIZABETH OGUNDIYAN v. THE STATE (1991) 4 SCNJ 44; (1991) 3 SC 100. Without any clear evidence of errors in law or fact, leading to or occasioning miscarriage of justice, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings. This is how Obaseki, JSC had emphasised the point in OGUNDIYAN v. THE STATE (supra).

A decision is said to be perverse when –

“a) it runs counter to the evidence before the Court, as

b) it is not supported by the evidence adduced, or

c) where it has been shown that the Court took into account extraneous matters, or matters it ought not to have taken into account or shuts its eyes to the obvious; or