Peter Ushie V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting in Calabar delivered on 18th February, 2010, convicting the Appellant for conspiracy and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed his notice of appeal with 4 grounds.

The Appellant filed his Appellant’s brief on 2nd November, 2010 but deemed properly filed and served on 3rd April, 2012.

The appellant articulated 2 issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the trial court was right to have held that the offence of conspiracy was proved by the prosecution against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds 1, 2, and 4).

2. Whether the sentence of the Appellant to 5 (five) years imprisonment by the trial court was correct, justifiable, or legally tenable (Ground 3).

The Respondent filed its Respondent’s brief on 27th March, 2012 and deemed properly filed and served on.

The Respondent adopted the 2 issues articulated by the Appellant.

The Appellant was a civil servant in the employment of the Cross River State Government and was attached to the State Sports Council as the accountant. It was alleged that he conspired with Edu Enya Evemili and Gabriel O. Etim, a cashier in the Ministry to defraud the Cross River State Government. The Appellant had allegedly arranged with PW1 who had ceased to be a civil servant to receive his 3 months salary fraudulently. The PW1 then contacted the security operatives in the Government House who arranged and arrested the 3 accused persons.

Three of them were charged with conspiracy and theft of several sums of money being unclaimed salaries of non-existent civil servants.

The matter went to full trial and at the end of which the trial Judge delivered its considered judgment. The trial court found 1st and 2nd accused persons guilty of conspiracy and stealing. The 1st accused now Appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on count one ie conspiracy.

ISSUE 1

The learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that in a charge for conspiracy; the prosecution had to prove;