Nigerian Army V. Abuo (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division or Court below or lower Court, Coram: Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Adamu Jauro JJCA (as they then were) and Stephen Jonah Adah, delivered on the 13th day of March, 2019, upholding the respondent’s appeal and setting aside the findings of the General Court martial delivered on the 11th October, 2012, which convicted the respondent of the offence of forgery, pursuant to Section 112(C) of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, LFN, 2004 and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.

FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS APPEAL

The Respondent was arraigned before a General Court Martial convened by Major Gen. N.A. Nasamu and presided over by Brig. Gen. G. Lawal. He was charged with the offence of forgery contrary to Section 112(C) of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, LFN, 2004.

The Respondent was alleged to have on or about the 28th of April, 2011 forged SD A1 Certificate, which he had been using as part of his qualifications in the service of the Nigerian Army.

​During interrogation, Respondent told the team of investigators at the headquarters of SIB how he was nominated for a course at the Command and Staff College Jaji, Kaduna by his unit in 1999 but could not attend the course.

He then sought the assistance of one warrant officer Mathew Agba who promised to help him procure the SD A1 Certificate which was the Certificate he would have been issued had he attended the course. The said W.O. Mathew Aoba was not called as a witness for the defence as the appellant had told the HQ SIB that he could not trace him and did not know the whereabout of the said W.O. Mathew Agba.

The prosecution called one witness Warrant Officer Christopher Eke (PW1) who was part of the team of investigators that interrogated the Respondent at HQ SIB. He tendered in total 10 Exhibits, which were certified documents including the statement the appellant made to the HQ SIB team (Exhibit 10) and also the response from the Command and Staff College Jaji, Exhibit P 9-5 indicating that the Respondent was never enlisted for the course and could not have been issued the said Exhibit P7 that he purportedly obtained from the institution.

The respondent on the other hand did not call any witness but rather rested his case on that of the prosecution; dwelling mainly on the admissibility of the exhibits the prosecution had tendered in proof of its case, notwithstanding that all the exhibits were duly certified and the fact that prosecution had informed the General Court Martial that as a practice, once cases are investigated at SIB and before the case file is forwarded to AHQ, copies are normally made of the documents and kept. See page 27 of the record of appeal.

The General Court Martial after trial found the Respondent guilty and convicted him of the offence of forgery, pursuant to Section 112(c) of the Armed Forces Act, Cap.A20, LFN, 2004 and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. The Respondent dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court lodged an appeal at the lower Court vide a notice of appeal that was filed on the 17th of April, 2018 containing thirteen grounds of appeal.

​At the hearing on 13/1/2022 learned Senior Advocate, Abdulwahab Muhammed adopted the brief of argument filed on 10/1/2020 and deemed filed on 21/1/2021. Also adopted is the Reply Brief filed on 18/1/7021 and deemed filed on 21/1/2021. The appellant distilled a single issue for determination, viz:

Whether this appeal was statute barred.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Achinike G. William-Wobodo Esq. adopted the brief of argument filed on 9/3/2020 and deemed filed on 21/1/2021. He donated five issues for determination which are thus:

1. Was the Court of Appeal in error when it held that the charge brought against the respondent more than three years after the alleged forgery was committed was statute barred and therefore robbed the General Court Martial of the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the charge? (Ground 1; the sole ground of the Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Court below was not in error and also acted in breach of its duty when it refused to consider and pronounce on diverse complaints and fundamental issues validly raised and canvassed before it by the Respondent, and if so, whether this Court has the power to determine the issues? (Ground 1 of the Respondent’s Notice)
3. Whether the General Court Martial was right to have admitted the purported certified copy (tertiary evidence) of public documents produced from secondary documents which themselves were not certified true copy and did not satisfy the legal standard and requirement for the admissibility, and if not, was the trial Court right to have relied on such inadmissible evidence to convict the Respondent herein, (Ground 2, 3, and 7 of the Respondent’s Notice)
4. Was the General Court Martial right to have held that the Prosecution proved the case of forgery against the Respondent herein beyond reasonable doubt (Ground 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Respondent’s Notice).
5. Whether the General Court Martial properly evaluated and applied the available evidence as required by law before it relied on same to convict the Respondent herein? (Ground 6 of the Respondent’s Notice)

I shall make use of the single issue crafted by the appellant as I am satisfied that the question that is germane in this appeal is the status of the matter that was before the General Court Martial and which is whether the suit therein was statute barred or not.