The Queen V Abdullahi Isa (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F

The appellant was convicted in the High Court of the Jos Judicial Division in the Northern Region on a charge of murder and was on the 21st day of February, 1961 sentenced to death. He has appealed to this Court against his conviction.

The circumstances leading up to the charge may be briefly summarised as follows: supporters of two rival political parties were involved in a disturbance which broke out outside the Alkali’s Court in Maiduguri. During the melee which followed some men were stabbed. It was alleged that the appellant went up to the deceased, Dajia Zango, and stabbed him with a knife; he sustained injuries which caused his death. The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of three of the eye-witnesses to the killing, and rejected the evidence of the appellant. The material part of his judgment is as follows:–

Now I am quite satisfied that Mustapha Hauwani, Mai Male and Mallam Sanda were substantially truthful witness and I accept their evidence. I reject the accused’s version of what happened. Upon their evidence I am satisfied that the only person who stabbed the deceased was the accused. It is true that their evidence of the stabs and the medical evidence varies to some extent; but it is, in my view, substantially consistent, especially when one considers the turmoil which was going on at the time. The same applies to the conflict in the evidence as to how Mallam Sanda got possession of the knife with which the ac-cused stabbed the deceased. I am satisfied that these witnesses called by the prosecution were truthful and I believe, and find proved, that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased causing injuries from which the deceased died the same day.

Counsel for the appellant has attacked this finding, and argued that there were such contradictions in the evidence of witnesses for the Crown which, properly considered, would have entitled the appellant to an acquittal.

There is no doubt that the case hinges on the identity of the appellant. It is hardly necessary for us to say that the identity of the appellant rests entirely on the evidence of the witnesses who were present at the scene and saw what actually happened. If their evidence is such that leaves no room for doubt and is acceptable, its value cannot be enhanced by any other collateral facts or circumstances.

We have carefully considered the various contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses who were present at the scene. Of the twelve witnesses who gave evidence for the Crown five, namely 2nd witness, 3rd witness, 4th witness, 6th wit-ness and 7th witness, were present at the scene and gave evidence of what they saw.The learned trial Judge in the passage of his judgment herein before referred to accepted the evidence of the 4th, 6th and 7th witnesses respectively.

The relevant part of the evidence of the 2nd witness for the Crown is as follows:-

I know Dajia Zango. I saw him at the Court that day. I saw him when the fight started. He was…. about 25 feet from me. I saw him stabbed. The person who stabbed him was Abdullahi Isa (accused identified). I did not know accused before that day. When accused stabbed Dajia I took the knife from him, accused. Accused stabbed Dajia with a knife. I gave the knife to the Police. I gave ft to Abba Ail Zanna. After Dajia had been stabbed by accused he went to a Neam tree and sat down at the foot of the tree. After 1 had taken the knife from accused I went to Dajia.

Under cross-examination, he said:-

When I took the knife from him (accused) I gave it to the Police and he was arrested by the Police immediately and taken inside the Court It is not correct that the Police hit the accused’s hand with a stick and the knife fell down. The Police did not help me to take the knife from accused.

The 3rd witness for the Crown, Police Constable Abba Ali Zanna, is recorded as having said:-

During the disturbance 2nd prosecution witness gave me a knife. The knife had blood on R. I gave R to Corporal Zanna. I tendered the knife (Exhibit A).

Another eye-witness, the 4th witness for the Crown, Mustapha Mauwami, said:-