Sani Lawali V. The State (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

The appellant, convicted by the High Court of Sokoto State (Coram: D. B. Sambo, J) for the robbery while armed with dangerous weapon, and for culpable homicide punishable with death, was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were upon his appeal, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Sokoto division on 16th February, 2017. He has further appealed to this Court on four (4) grounds of appeal all which are grounds or complaints of pure facts. Three of the grounds, that is grounds 2, 3, 8, 4, were though prefaced as errors in law. In actuality, they are complaints of fact. The right of appellant to appeal as of right on the 4 grounds complaining on facts is secured by Section 233 (2) (d) of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal having affirmed his death sentence.

The main thrust of the appeal, as argued by M. O. Folorunsho, Esq., of Counsel for the appellant, on a sole issue for the determination of the appeal is bifurcated as follows –

1. The Pw.6’s identification of the appellant at the identification parade and the trial. Appellant’s counsel argues that the identification of

1

the appellant was faulty. On the other hand, the Respondent’s case or answer to this charge is fastened firmly on the Pw.6 (the complainant’s) insistence, particularly in his extra-judicial statement to the police Exhibit P9, wherein he stated categorically that he could –

Identify these armed robbers at wherever (he) see them. This is because I saw them with my naked eyes; Even though they wore “turban to cover their faces”. He made Exhibit P9 on 8th July, 2009, a day after the robbery. He testified on 17th March, 2014 and was cross-examined. He maintained his stance in Exhibit PS; and

2. The appellant was said to have raised an alibi that he was in detention at the material time the alleged armed robbery and culpable homicide took place. His extra-judicial statement wherein he made the assertion was not in evidence. The appellant, testifying as Dw.2, at page 77 of Record categorically denied that he made any statement at the State CID. The stance of the appellant on the alleged alibi and his Counsel’s position on it, at page 25 of the Record, are divergent and materially inconsistent. The implication of this is: No alibi, even if pleaded, was established.

2

The complaint in the sole issue raised for the determination of the appeal is that the Lower Court was not right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court that the prosecution had proved the commission of the two offences by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, though charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy, was not convicted for that offence. Accordingly, all submissions on whether the offence of criminal conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant therefore go to naught.

It is submitted for the appellant, as if the counsel thought he was still at the trial Court, that the prosecution must show “that the appellant participated in the act or fact that culminated to (sic: “culminated in”) the charge” (I guess the offences he was convicted for). To ramp the submission, counsel asked rhetorically; was the appellant identified by the prosecution to have committed the offences He pointed out that this is the question that this Court is called upon to determine in this appeal.

3

The appellant had himself demolished any defence of alibi that may avail him. He testified as Dw.2. The substance of his short testimony at page 77 is;

I don’t know anything about the robbery. It is not true weapons were kept in my house for robbery operation. I was arrested at Achida Market while leading when a police man called me and brought me to CID Sokoto.

Under cross-examination he testified –