Okechukwu Ughanwa v. Inspector General Of Police (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on the 14th day of January, 2020 in appeal No. CA/A/107C/2018.

The appellant was arraigned together with two others before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja for having committed the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery which are offences punishable under sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Offences) Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The appellant who was the 2nd accused person at the trial was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

The appellant and his co-accused were said to have conspired to and did rob one Reverend Father Paul Onah in his residence at Saint Micheals Catholic Church, Garaku in Nasarawa State of his Honda CRV with Registration No. BWR 22 AG, some cash and other valuable items.

Evidence was also led to show that the robbers were armed with offensive weapon at the time of the robbery. Furthermore, that the stolen Honda CRV was later found in the custody of the appellant and the co-accused who were in the process of selling it.

In proof of their case, the prosecution called four (4) witnesses and tendered a number of exhibits including the extra-judicial statements of the appellant which was admitted in evidence as exhibit 2.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty on both counts and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Vexed by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant has further appealed to this court.

The notice of appeal which was filed on 02/2/2021 is premised on four (4) grounds of appeal. The parties then filed and served brief of arguments with the appellant’s brief of argument being filed on 16/3/2021. Two issues were distilled therein for determination as follows:

(a) Considering the totality of evidence placed before the trial court by parties, whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction and sentencing of the appellant when there was no proof that he was among the robbers that invaded the residence of Reverend Father Paul Onah (PW4) on the 25th of October, 2012. (Distilled from grounds 1, 3 and 4)

(b) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by relying on the extra-judicial statement of the appellant (exhibit 2) which in law is not a confessional statement. (Distilled from ground 2)

The respondent’s brief argument was filed on 26/3/2021. Therein, two (2) issues were also raised for determination as follows:

1. Whether the lower court was right to have confirmed the conviction of the appellant on the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. (Distilled from ground 1, 3 & 4).
2. Whether the court below affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by relying solely on the extra-judicial statements of the appellant made to the Police (exhibit 2). (Distilled from ground 2)

Now, before I proceed to a resolution of the issues raised by the parties in this appeal, I find it compelling to consider an issue which, in my view, necessarily needs be resolved in the interest of justice. The issue which is of paramount importance to the validity of the entire proceedings at the two courts below, in my view, relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Federal Capital Territory High Court of Justice when it tried and convicted the appellant of the offences charged against him. Certainly, this issue has not been raised by either of the parties in this appeal, so it is being raised suo motu by me.

The settled law is that no court is at liberty to raise and resolve any issue suo motu without inviting the parties to address on it. Therefore, when the court finds, in the course of writing a judgment, that a fundamental issue has arisen that may sway the decision in the matter, one way or the other, it must invite the parties to address it on such issue(s) before proceeding to determine the case. See Solomon Bem Kwenev v. The State (2022) 46 WRN 100 per Augie, JSC, Stirling Civil Eng. (Nig). Ltd v. Yahaya (2005) 26 WRN 1, Ebele Okoye & Ors v. Commissioner of Police & Ors (2016) 29 WRN 134 and Total Engineering Services Team Inc. v. Chevron Nigeria Limited (2018) All FWLR (Pt.919) 158 at 180-182. Thus, in Akeredolu v. Abraham & Ors (2018) 35 WRN 1 my Lord Okoro, JSC said:

May I also state that although an appeal court or any other court is entitled to its discretion to take points suo motu if it deems fit to do so in the interest of justice, that discretion must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances only. Where the points are so taken, the parties must be given opportunity to address the court before a decision on the point can be made. This is a matter of duty and a fulfillment of the Constitutional requirement of fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).