Stephen Haruna V. The Attorney General Of Federation (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

This is an appeal against the decision of the court of Appeal, Abuja dated 22nd January, 2010 affirming the decision dated 6th October, 2008 of the High Court of Abuja FCT, wherein the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of culpable homicide contrary to section 221 of the penal code.

The background facts of this case have a remarkably very sad antecedent. The Appellant as has been stated was charged for the offence of culpable homicide contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code and punishable with death.

The case against the Appellant was that on or about 31st of December, 2003, he caused the death of one Miss E. N. Igwe. The appellant was a security guard working with POWER HOLDING COMPANY OF NIGERIA PLC (PHCN) and was attached to the deceased who was at the material time Assistant General Manager, Legal. On the date the body of the deceased was found on the floor of her house, the appellant was the only person who was in the compound with her. The Appellant made 3 different statements. In two of the statements, especially, the 3rd statement, the Appellant clearly, directly and unequivocally confessed to the killing of the deceased.

On 20th day of April, 2005, the prosecution counsel opened his case and called 6 witnesses. PW1 testified that a case of culpable homicide was referred from Garki Police Division, involving the appellant. PW1 testified that on getting to the scene of crime he recovered a number of Exhibits which incriminated the appellant. PW1 took Exhibits ‘M1 – M3″, all statements of the accused, under word of caution and Exhibit “N”, statement of the Appellant’s girlfriend (one Mary Jimoh) where he kept the money. The appellant testified before the trial court. After the prosecution and defence closed their case the trial court on 6th October, 2008 delivered its judgment wherein it convicted the appellant of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, the appellant herein further appealed to this Court filing his Notice of Appeal on 9th March, 2010 containing 5 grounds. The Appellant, in his brief of argument dated 4th but filed on 5th May, 2010, formulated 4 issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the court below is right to hold that it is now too late in the day for the Appellant/Accused to seek to impugn the value or weight to be placed on those exhibits when at the trial the defence opposed their admissibility and later withdrew its objection.
2. Whether the court below are right to hold that what the Appellant counsel calls incongruous pieces of contradictions ore realty of no moment and did not affect the substance of what was intended to be conveyed in exhibit M3.
3. Whether the court below is right to hold that the trial Judge did not misdirect himself when he held that there were many questions which the accused/appellant threw open that needed his explanation and he failed to deliver as the Appellant is only required to offer a minimum of explanation.
4. Whether the court below is right to follow the decision of the Judge and rely on Exhibit M3 (3rd statement of accused) to the exclusion of M1 (1st statement of accused) and Exhibit (2nd statement of accused).

It is instructive to note that Appellant’s issue No. 1 flows from Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal, issue No. 1 from Ground I issue No. 3 from Ground 3 and issue No. 4 from Ground 4 respectively.

The issues as formulated by the Appellant can be condensed into sole issue for the purpose of the appeal. The ultimate issue is the determination vel no of the guilt of the appellant. Clearly, the argument of the Respondent is that his guilt has been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

I have observed that this appeal is against concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below. The firmly rooted principle of law is that this court does not make a practice of interfering with such concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse or there are special circumstances to warrant same.

The arguments canvassed by the appellant in his brief could be summariseld thus. That the Exhibits tendered by the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant were not from proper custody and as such the trial court ought not to have admitted them in evidence; and that the court below ought to have reversed the decision of the trial court. I have carefully gone through the records of proceedings at the trial court pertaining to how the various exhibits namely – Exhibits ‘A’- G4 were admitted.

These are:

(a) A grey NEPA Uniform – Exhibit ‘A’

(b) A black Pair of trousers – Exhibit ‘B’

(c) A broken ceramic Plate – Exhibit ‘C’