Usman Isah & Ors. V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The criminal charge brought against the Appellants before the Kaduna State High Court reads thus;

“That you, Usman Isa, Bello Rilwanu and Umar Mushade jointly on or about 31st day of August, 1999, at about 6:45pm, attacked and robbed monies, other valuables and bicycle from one Salisu Badamasi and his friends on their way home from Anchau Market of Kubau Local Government Area. You thereby committed an offence punishable under section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions Act) Cap 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria”.

On 12/12/2001, the charge was read over to the Appellants and to which, they, individually, entered a plea of not guilty.

Two witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution while the Appellants testified for themselves. During the trial, the issue of admissibility of the confessional statements of the Appellants cropped up and their objections were overruled and the same were admitted as Exhibits 1, 1(A), 2, 2(A), and 5, 5(A) respectively. At the end of the trial, the trial Court found the three accused persons guilty of a lesser offence under 2(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 L.F.N, 1990 and sentenced each of them to 14 years imprisonment.

The Appellants were unsatisfied with the said judgment and then proceeded to lodge an appeal against the same which they predicated on four grounds of appeal.

The Appellants, through their Counsel, A.T. Kehinde Esq., filed their Brief of Argument in which two issues were propositioned for consideration by this Court. The issues raised are:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in relying on Exhibits 1, 1(a), 2, 2(a) and 5, 5(a) held to be the confessional statements and finding the Appellants guilty without investigation.

2. Whether the guilt of the Appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the totality of the evidence.”

In the Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by Tawo E. Tawo Esq, only one issue was tabled for this Court’s determination, that is to say:

“Whether the learned trial judge was wrong in admitting and relying solely on the confessional statements of the Appellants; Exhibits 1, 1(a), 2, 2(a) 5 and 5(a) in convicting them for the offence of robbery”.

A.T. Kehinde Esq., Learned Counsel for the Appellants, argued in respect of issue No. 1 that for a confessional statement to be legally admissible and be acted upon by the Court, it must be voluntary, positive and unequivocal, and, that any question as to its voluntariness must be tested before same is acted upon by the trial Court. He cited Yesufu vs. The State (1976) 6 S.C. 163 at 173, Okegbu vs. State (1984) 8 S.C. 65 and Kim vs. The State (1992) 4 S.C.N.J. 81 at 110.

Learned Counsel strenuously argued that the objections were timeously raised, on behalf of the Appellants, to the admissibility of the said confessional statements at the point of their being tendered, on the grounds that; (a) the Appellants did not thumb print the statements and; (b) they did not know the contents of the same.

He made reference to the evidence of P.W.1 under cross-examination at page 24(sic) lines 22-23, where he acknowledged that there are two thumb prints, and, 8 thumbs, and the thumb print is reversal of the thumb print. Counsel, also, referred to the testimony of P.W.2., that he took statement from Idi, but, he did not recover the bicycle, and, that he recorded the statement of one Salisu Badamasi and two other persons. He recorded the statement of one Usman Isa, the 1st accused person.

Counsel further argued that some doubt exists regarding the statements of the 1st and 3rd Appellants purportedly tendered by P.W.1. P.W.1 told the Court that he recorded statements from other persons, apart from the 1st and 3rd Appellants, but, he did not tell the Court the where-about of those statements.