The State V. Ibrahim Yahaya (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division (the lower or Court below) delivered on the 19th of February, 2016 which set aside the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Katsina State (“the trial Court” for short).

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent with five other co-accused persons were 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. The victim was thereafter shot with a gun which led to his death.

At the trial, the appellant called eieht(8) witnesses and tendered several exhibits, while the respondent who was the sixth accused person, testified for himself. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found the respondent and the other five co-accused persons guilty as charged and sentenced them accordingly.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent as the 6th accused person, appealed to the Court below successfully, wherein he was discharged and acquitted. The present

1

appellant not satisfied with this judgment of the Court below, has now appealed to the Supreme Court.

In arguing this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant distilled two issues for determination from the three grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal. The two issues for determination are set out hereunder:-

1. Whether there are cogent evidence outside the retracted confessional statement of the respondent (Exhibit 10A and 108) corroborating the said confessional statement warranting him to be convicted for the offence (sic)charged, taking into cognizance the testimonies of prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 6 and whether his confessional statement would pass the acceptable tests warranting him to be convicted solely on it without a doubt being created in the mind of the Court(Distilled from Grounds 1 and 3).
2. Whether the lower Court misdirected itself when it held that the quality of the identification evidence by PW6 cannot be said to be credible, positive and direct, but manifestly weak and calls for caution and it is trite that the evidence of PW6 which is deficient weak and insufficient and which must be treated with

2

caution, cannot corroborate the respondent’s retracted confession which requires corroboration (Distilled from Ground 2).

On his part, the respondent’s learned counsel simply adopted the first issue for determination raised by the appellant as reproduced above, which needs not be set out again.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL ON THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

ISSUE NO.1