State V. Ibrahim (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. 

This appeal is grounded on the findings of facts and the law as determined by the Lower Court. The Court charged with the duty to review the facts and evidence on appeal also needs to make specific findings of fact in order to determine whether the Lower Court’s findings were valid. Halilu Muhammed v I.G.P. (1970) NNLR 98, Stephen v. The State (1986) 5 NWLR Pt.46 Pg. 978.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows: The Respondent along with five other co-defendants at trial were charged before the Trial Court with the offence of Armed Robbery punishable under Section 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as amended. The Respondent was alleged to have robbed one Alh. Ummaru Masanawa (the village head of Sabuwar Kasa) at Sabuwar Kasa village in Kafur Local Government Area of Katsina State of the sum of N30, 000:00 (Thirty Thousand Naira only). The victim died of gunshot wounds inflicted during the robbery. The Respondent and the other five (5) defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge before the Hon. Justice Sanusi Tukur at the Trial Court. At the trial, eight (8) witnesses testified for the Appellant and some Exhibits were tendered and admitted in evidence. P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.6 were relatives of the victim who witnessed the robbery. None of them could identify the robbers. P.W.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were Investigating Police Officers who investigated the crime and took statements from all the six defendants. The only evidence against the present Respondent is the statement of a non-witness that he was one of several robbers in the Kaduna Area. The Respondent as the 2nd Defendant on the other hand testified for himself and did not tender any exhibit at the Trial Court.

The Respondent and five others were thereafter found guilty and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death accordingly. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court, the Respondent had appealed to the Court of Appeal (Lower Court) sitting at Kaduna. He was discharged and acquitted by the Lower Court on the 13th November, 2015, Coram Habeeb A.O. Abiru, JCA and Adefope-Okojie, JCA and Amina Wambai, JCA. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Appellant- Katsina State Government, has now appealed to this Court.

In the Appellant’s brief, two issues were crystallised for determination by Abu Umar Esq Senior State Counsel. Those same issues were adopted almost verbatim by the Respondent’s Counsel in the brief settled by Emmanuel Esene Esq. I will also adopt the same issues as set out below for the determination of this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

a. Whether there are pieces of evidence outside the retracted confessional statement of the Respondent (Exhibit 7A) warranting him to be convicted solely on it even though he did not sign Exhibit “7B” (Translation of Exhibit 7A). Distilled from Grounds 1 and 3.

b. Whether Idris Abdullahi and Danbuzu said to be mentioned by PW3 and PW5 are vital witnesses who ought to have been called by the Appellant and failure to call them is detrimental to the Appellant’s case, casting doubt in the mind of the Court. Distilled from Ground 2.

ISSUE ONE

This issue can be subdivided into two. The first leg is whether the absence of the signature of the Respondent on Exh 7B, the English translation of Exh 7A (the retracted) confessional statement makes it worthless. The argument of Learned Appellant’s Counsel on this point is that Ogudo v. The State (2011) 12 SC (PT.I) Pg 71; 12 SCNJ 1 relied on by the lower Court to discountenance the substance of both Exh 7A (the Hausa version) and Exh 7B (the English Translation) of the Confessional Statement is quite distinguishable from this case because in Ogudo v. The State (SUPRA), it was the statement recorded in the language spoken and understood by the Defendant that was unsigned, not the translated version as in this case. Counsel argued that it is the Respondent’s statement taken in the Respondent’s language that needs to be signed or thumb printed during Police investigation. On the other hand, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the issue at stake is the legal status of Exh 7A vis a vis Exh 7B bearing in mind that an unsigned statement is a worthless statement. Counsel posed the question whether Exh 7A and Exh 7B must operate or be considered together or they can be considered independently of each other. Respondent’s Counsel contended that the signing of the Hausa version of the confessional statement by the Defendant and the IPO who took the statement cannot dispense with the need to ensure that both the maker and interpreter must sign the interpreted version of the statement. Counsel submitted further that the document can only bind the respondent if he had signed same. That is to say that he cannot be said to be a maker of the document which he did not sign especially when the original had been retracted by him.

OPINION

My Lords, the position of the law as it stands today is that the signed retracted confessional statement Exh. 7A taken in vernacular is admissible in evidence. What matters is the probative value to be attached to it. See: GALADIMA v. THE STATE (2012) LPELR – 15530 (SC); Montanya & Ors v. Elinwa & Ors (1994) LPELR – 1919 (SC); LSDPC & Anor v. The Nigerian Land & Sea Foods Ltd (1992) LPELR – 1744 (SC); Etajata & ORS v. Ologbo & Anor (2007) LPELR – 1171 (SC). In the circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s statement made in the language he understood was signed by both himself and the I.P.O. The finding of the Lower Court, which I agree with is that the translated version in English Language which is the language of the Court was unsigned by the Respondent. I am of the view that the Respondent’s Statement in Exh. 7A was prima facie admissible unless successfully impugned as involuntary by a trial within trial. Also, the English translation not signed is also admissible through the writer of the said translation – that is the interpreter. Thus, Exh. 7B, interpreted statement of the Respondent is admissible and was so properly admitted by the trial Court and the lower Court. In this case, the I.P.O who took the statement of the Respondent in Hausa Language, P.W.3, was also the officer who interpreted it into English and tendered it in Court. It is settled that the person or officer who interpreted a statement must tender it in Court so that if necessary, the interpreter can be cross examined on whether the interpreted statement is the correct interpretation of the original words as spoken by the Defendant. Therefore, it was essential for P.W.3 to be present in Court to tender both the original statement in Hausa Language Exh.7A and the interpreted version Exh 7B. Exh. 7B would be documentary hearsay and inadmissible if it were not tendered in Court by P.W.3, see R v. Ogbuewu (1949) 12 WACA Pg. 483, Nwaeze v. The State (1996) 2 NWLR Pt. 428 Pg. 1., FRN v. Mohammed Usman Alias Yaro Yaro (2012) LPELR-7818 (SC). In fact in Baba Haske v The Queen (1961) LPELR-2508 (SC), this Court held that the failure of the interpreter of a statement to sign same does not render the statement inadmissible though it is desirable for the statement to be signed by the interpreter. The appropriate procedure was followed by the Prosecution in that regard as PW3 tendered Exh 7B.

It is my view that the interpreted version of the statement need not be signed by the Defendant. After all, where the Defendant is the maker of the original statement in Hausa Language and he has duly signed same as had happened in this appeal, whether retracted or not, the interpreted version made by another person (the IPO) need not be signed by the Defendant who was not the maker. By the law of evidence, Exh. 7B was made by the IPO. In other words, it is only essential that the Defendant sign or thumb print the confessional statement in vernacular, to lend credence to its voluntariness, he/she need not sign or thumb print the interpreted version. In short, the two statements are not joined at the hips.

They each stand alone. Exhibit 7A, the confessional statement made in the language of the defendant and the interpreted version made by a Police officer or interpreter as being the correct version of the original. However, the maker of the interpreted version must tender it in Court, failing which it would be regarded as mere documentary hearsay and inadmissible, see FRN v USMAN (2012) LPELR – 7818 (SC); Haske v. The Queen (1961) LPELR – 25081 (SC); Olalekan v. The State (2001) LPELR – 2261 (SC). Thus, Exhibit 7B, the interpreted version of the statement of the Respondent was admissible and was so properly admitted by the trial Court and the lower Court.