Wilfred Okafor V. The State (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A.

The appellant was charged in the High Court Niger State, sitting in Minna with Robbery, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1990. He was found guilty of the offence on the 6th day of May, 2002, by the Hon. Justice Aisha A.L.B. Bwari and sentenced to 21 years in prison.

To substantiate its case, the State, now respondent in this appeal, called six witnesses and tendered documentary evidence, among which are the statements of the accused person and the complainant, PW1.

The prosecution’s case was that on the 5th day of November, 1999, one Mohammed Ahmed, a commercial driver who testified as the PW1 drove his vehicle, a 505 Peugeot Station Wagon from Lagos to Minna, The registration number of his vehicle is XA 978 MNA. There were passengers and their belongings in the vehicle. On arriving at Edozhigi road junction, about 15 Kilometres from Bida, he ran over oranges stuck with nails. The two front tyres of his vehicle ran flat. He and all the passengers disembarked from the vehicle. He told the passengers to go to the Police checkpoint which was not too far off. He followed them, but on his way, he heard a gun shot. The passengers ran into the bush. Two robbers came out of the bush and attacked PW1 with a stick and robbed him of N11,800 and made away with the passengers’ goods.

PW1 reported the matter to the Police at Lemu Division, Edozhigi. The robbery occurred at about 8.30 p.m.

In her judgment, the learned trial Judge rejected the appellant’s defence. Her lordship accepted the evidence of the prosecution witness and ended her judgment summarizing thus-

“I dare say, I find no such contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Each of the witness (Prosecution) stated step by step what they knew and did with regard to their investigation of the case. Court can do no other than to find the accused person guilty. The accused person, Wilfred Okafor, is hereby found guilty of the offence of robbery under Section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1990.”

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed against the conviction by the learned trial Judge to this Court.

In accordance with the Rules of this Court to wit: Order 6 rules 2 and 4 both sides filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

The appellant’s brief filed on 16/1/04 contained seven grounds of appeal, and they are:

“1. The judgment of the lower court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced during the trial.

2. The court below erred in Law, when it found the appellant guilty of an offence of Robbery, when the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, or even that there was robbery at all and that the Appellant participated in it.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, to have convicted the Appellant in the absence of properly conducted identification parade and proper evidence of identification.
4. The learned trial Judge by attaching undue weight to the evidence of the complainant/PW1 despite previous inconsistent statement made by him to the Police and his evidence in the court.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, when it held that the sentence is the minimum imposed by the Law.
6. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, by trying and convicting the Appellant under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990, whereas it has no such jurisdiction under the said Law and therefore, causing substantial miscarriage of justice.
7. The whole trial conducted by the lower court was a nullity in that the substantial part of the proceedings and delivery of judgment were conducted by the lower court inside the judge’s chambers.”

Five issues for us to determine have been postulated in the Appellant’s brief. They are:-

“1. Whether considering the evidence before the court, the Hon. trial Court was right to have returned verdict of guilt.

2. Whether having regards to the totality of evidence before the trial court and the circumstances of this case, a case of Robbery was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.
3. Whether the evidence of identification in this case was proper and reliable for the Hon. Trial court to have acted upon, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
4. Whether in the face of irreconcilable contradictions in the evidence of PW1, the Star Witness for the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was right to have convicted the Appellant.
5. Whether the trial and conviction of the Appellant under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act by the Niger State High Court of Justice was not invalid.”

On his own part, the respondent formulated the following issues for determination in his brief filed on 29/4/04.