Olanrewaju Aina V. The People of Lagos State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012 by Hon. Justice O. A. Williams wherein the Appellant was arraigned, tried, convicted and Sentenced to 21 years imprisonment on a two count charge of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 402(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap. C17 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State, 2003. The charge against the Appellant in the Court below is as follows:
“Count 1:
OLANREWAJU AINA (M)
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 1ST COUNT, Armed Robbery Contrary to Section 402 (2)(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap C, 17 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State (2001)
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
OLANREWAJU AINA (M) with others at large on the 5th day of February 2006 at about 11.00pm No. 37A, Glover Road Ikoyi, Lagos in Lagos Judicial Division robbed Mr. Peter Schubert at gun point of his Jewellery, wrist watch, 2(two) laptops Hp Compact Black Cross Ball Pen, Mobile Phones, Digital Cannon Camera IXUS 75 Megaphone and other personal effects all valued at One Million Naira (N1M) only.
STATEMENT OF

1

OFFENCE 2ND COUNT
Armed Robbery Contrary to Section 402 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code Law Cap 17 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2004.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
OLANREWAJU AINA (M) with others at large on the 5th day of February 2006 at about 11.00pm No, 37A, Glover Road Ikoyi, Lagos, in the Lagos Judicial Division did rob Mr. Shok Isani and Mariam Bla of their jewellery (bracelet, earrings, a bangle), cash of 859 US Dollars, one Laptop, 3 pieces of Mobile Phone, N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) cash and other personal effects all valued about One Million Naira (N1M) only.”

The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the two count charge and the case went on for trial. To prove its case, the Prosecution called three witnesses and tendered one exhibit. The Appellant thereafter testified in his defence in a bid to extricate himself. At the end of addresses for the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial judge in its judgment found the Appellant guilty of the two counts of armed robbery and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

It is the case of the prosecution that on the 5th day of February, 2006

2

at about 11 pm, one Mr. Peter Schubert, Mr. Shok Isani and Mariam Bla were robbed at gun point and the following items were stolen from them; jewelries, wrist watch, 3 Hp compact laptops, black cross ball pen, 7 mobile phones, digital cannon camera IXUS 75 megaphone, cash of 859 US Dollars, N400,000.00 cash and personal effects valued at Two Million Naira only. The following day the Appellant was arrested when one of the stolen items (Phone) was traced to him and upon arrest was found in his possession. Confessional statement made by him was admitted without objection at the trial. However, the Appellant in his defence at the trial denied the voluntariness of the Confessional Statement. At the conclusion of the trial he was convicted and sentence to 21 years imprisonment.
?
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment filed a Notice of Appeal on the 28th December, 2010. In accordance with the Rules of the Court, the parties have filed their respective briefs. The Appellant’s brief was filed on 5th June, 2014 but deemed properly filed on the 15th June, 2016, while the Respondent’s brief was filed 18th February 2015 but deemed properly filed on the

3

15th June, 2016.

The Appellant in his brief formulated three issues for the determination. They are as follows:
?1. Whether or not the learned trial judge did not err in law by not conducting a trial within trial when the Appellant denied that his confessional statement was voluntarily made.
2. Whether or not on the preponderance of evidence, the Prosecution has proved the offence of armed robbery against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether or not there was a proper identification parade to identify the Appellant.”

The Respondent on its own part adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant above.

ISSUE 1
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is trite that when the admissibility of a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, it is incumbent on the judge to call upon the prosecutor to establish that it was voluntarily made by conducting a trial-within-trial. He referred to the case of Kabiru v. Ag Ogun State (2001) 5 NWLR 209; Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 Newer 175; Ekpo v. State (1982) 6 SC 22; Owie v. State (1985) NWLR 395.

He further contended that the