Olatinwo Nurudeen Bright V. The State (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C

The appellant and one Patrick Olufemi Kolawofe Ogedengbe were arraigned on a two-count charge before the criminal Division of the High court of Lagos state sitting at Ikeja. They were charged with conspiracy to commit murder contrary to S.324 of the criminal code Law and murder, contrary to S.319(1) of the criminal code Law cap 32 Laws of Lagos state 1994. The trial court found each of the appellant and his co-accused guilty as charged in each count and sentenced each to seven years imprisonment in count one and to death by hanging in Count Two.

The appeal to the court of Appeal, Lagos Division was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The appellant further appealed to this court on six (6) grounds, hereunder reproduced, shorn of their particulars:

“GROUND 1: The learned Justices of the court of Appeal erred in law when they held at pages of the judgment as follows: ‘The learned trial Judge took all requisite procedural steps for the management of an allegation of inducement, threat or duress in the making of a confessional statement under investigation. A trial within trial was conducted. After the procedure the learned trial Judge found that the statements was voluntarily made. It was the learned trial Judge who had an opportunity of a visual of the appellants as they each testified and responded to the questions put to them. No compelling reason has been advanced for interfering with the decision of the trial court Judge.

The said extra judicial statements therefore stand admitted as exhibits.”‘

“GROUND 2: The learned Justices of the court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the prosecution proved the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt when in actual fact there was no evidence to show that the appellant in fact committed the offence and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND 3: The Justices of the court of Appeal seriously erred in law when they failed to make a finding on the effect of failure by the Police (PW5) to interrogate vital witnesses especially one of the security guards (Wale) and other domestic staff that worked with the deceased in order to eliminate the likelihood of any other person other than the appellant, being responsible for the death of the deceased.

GROUND 4: The lower Court seriously erred in law in making a case for the prosecution instead of deciding issues as presented by the parties.

GROUND 5: The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves on facts and drew and drew inferences which cumulatively occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND 6 OMINIBUS GROUND: The Judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.”

From the (6) grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant formulated the following three issues for determination:

“(a) Whether the trial Court and indeed the lower Courts were both right in convicting and sentencing the appellants primarily on the uncorroborated and retracted extra-judicial statements of the Appellant.

(b) Whether the prosecution proved the necessary ingredient(s) of the offence of conspiracy and murder against the appellant beyond reasonable – doubt as required by the law.

(c) Whether the failure on the part of the prosecution to call vital witnesses circumstantially link the appellant with the murder of the deceased did not amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.”