Silas Sule V. The State (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (hereinafter called “the court below”) delivered on 4th April, 2007, affirming the conviction and sentence to death of the Appellant, by Musa, J. of the High Court of Kogi State for culpable homicide under Sections 97(1) and 221 of the Penal Code in his Judgment delivered on 5th May, 2003.

Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Appellant has appealed to this Court on ten (10) grounds of appeal as contained in his Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 12th September, 2008. The facts briefly stated, are that the Appellant and five others, were charged and arraigned before the trial court, sitting at Ankpa on two counts of conspiracy to murder and the murder of the deceased, one Jubrin Umoru Okpanachi. At the trial, five witnesses were called by the prosecution while each of the accused persons, testified in his defence. Thereafter, learned counsel for the parties submitted written addresses. In a considered Judgment, the learned trial Judge, found and held, that the charge of conspiracy, was not made out against the other five accused persons who were accordingly discharged and acquitted. The Appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed to the court below which affirmed the said decision of the trial court, hence the instant appeal to this Court.

On 17th March, 2009, when this appeal came up for hearing, the learned leading counsel for the parties adopted their respective amended Brief. While learned counsel for the appellant – Ocholi James, Esq., (SAN) urged the Court to allow the appeal, Abrahams, Esq., (Attorney-General, Kogi State) leading learned counsel for the respondent, urged the Court, to dismiss the appeal. Thereafter, Judgment was reserved till to-day.

In the Appellant’s amended Brief of Argument, nine (9) issues have been formulated for determination. They read as follows:

“(i) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she held that the statement of the appellant to the police was a confessional statement rather than one raising a defence of self defence and accident. (Distilled from Ground One of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(ii) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she relied on the inconsistent and unreliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially PW1 to hold that the defence of self defence was not open to the Appellant. (Distilled from Ground Two of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(iii) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she invoked section 150 (1) of the Evidence Act, Laws of the Federation 1990 to justify the outright violation of the express and compulsory provision of section (sic) 167 and 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Distilled from Ground Three of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(iv) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she held that lack of objection by the Appellant (sic) Counsel to the lumping of his plea and the knowledge and understanding of the charges by the Appellant are sufficient to justify the violation of the mandatory and compulsory provision of section (sic) 161 and 212 of the of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Distilled from Ground Four of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(v) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she ignored section (sic) 161 and 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was canvassed before her, but went ahead to consider section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a section of the law neither canvassed before her nor applicable to this case. (Distilled from Ground Five of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(vi) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she held that, since the Medical Officer on duty at the General Hospital Ankpa, Kogi State, when a corpse alleged to be that of the deceased in this case was brought, did not complain of identifying the corpse brought to the hospital on the 24th June 1999, identification of the said corpse was not necessary. (Distilled from Ground six of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(vii) Whether or not the Lower Court was right when she held that Christopher Sule and Jibrin Umoru ought to have been convicted for conspiracy and culpable homicide along with the appellant, when the said accused persons were discharged and acquitted of the said offence by the trial Court due to the inconsistency and unreliability of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial and no cross appeal was filed before the Court of Appeal challenging the finding/verdict of the trial Court in this regard. (Distilled from Ground seven of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(viii) Whether or not the Lower Court, haven (sic) held that there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence and poor quality of investigation was right in dismissing the appeal. (Distilled from Ground Eight of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

(ix).Whether exhibit B, the statement of the Appellant before the trial Court is admissible in law, the same haven (sic) being obtained through an interpreter who did not testify before the trial Court (Distilled from Ground 10 of the Notice of Appeal, Newly raised in this Appeal)”.