Musa Mamman V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant was charged before the lower Court under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code with one count of culpable homicide punishable with death and he was alleged to have caused the death of one Danjuma Mamman on or about the 20th day of February, 2006 at Yarbudu Village in Kurfi Local Government Area of Katsina State by stabbing him in the neck with a knife with knowledge that death would be the probable consequence of the act.

The Appellant pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charge and the matter went to trial. The Respondent called six witnesses and tendered three exhibits in proof of its case while the Appellant called two witnesses in proof of his defence. At the conclusion of trial and of the final addresses of Counsel, the lower Court found the Appellant guilty on the count of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced him to death.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and sequel to the order of this Court made on the 19th of November, 2014 granting him an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal, he caused a notice of

1

appeal dated the 28th of November, 2014 to be filed against it. The notice of appeal contained six grounds of appeal. In arguing the appeal before this Court, Counsel to the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 12th of January, 2015 on the 26th of January, 2015. In response, Counsel to the Respondent filed a brief of arguments dated the 12th of March, 2015.

At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments contained in their respective briefs as their oral submissions in the appeal. From the six grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal, Counsel to the Appellant distilled two issues for determination in the appeal. These were:

i. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he descended into the arena of conflict by cross-examining the Appellant.

ii. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when His Lordship held that the Respondent had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.

The complaint of the Appellant in the first issue for determination was that one Umaru Mamman, who testified as the second prosecution witness, gave evidence of the killing of

2

someone and did not mention the name of the person killed and/or the name of the Appellant as the assailant in his evidence in chief and by reason of which Counsel to the Appellant declined the invitation to cross-examine the witness, but that rather than discharge the witness, the learned trial Judge asked questions of the witness and in the course of which the witness supplied the name of the deceased as the person killed and the name of the Appellant as the culprit. The Appellant further complained that the learned trial Judge also asked questions of the Appellant in further cross-examination. Counsel to the Appellant stated that by these actions, the learned trial Judge descended into the arena of conflict by taking over the prosecution of the Appellant and thereby denied the Appellant a fair trial and he referred to the case of Okoduwa Vs State (1988) NWLR (Pt 76) 333 and he made quotations there from spanning over four pages of the brief of arguments.

?Counsel stated that where a trial Judge decides to cross-examine a prosecution witness on issues which the witness did not give any evidence on or which the defence Counsel did not cross-examine upon,

3