ALIYU v. STATE (2020)

ALIYU v. STATE

(2020)LCN/14367(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, June 29, 2020

CA/KN/619F/C/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Abubakar Datti Yahaya Justice of the Court of Appeal

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal

Amina Audi Wambai Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

YAHAYA ALIYU APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of armed robbery, it must establish that:-
a. There was robbery;
b. The robbery was an armed robbery; and
c. The defendant participated in the armed robbery.
See OLAYINKA V. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 561; MAIGARI V. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 439 and BELLO V. STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 564 AT 588 – 589. PER YAHAYA, J.C.A

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

The standard of proving criminal offences, unlike civil cases, is proof beyond reasonable doubt – Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides:-
“If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

In proving an offence, the prosecution may follow a number of ways to succeed. It could be by tendering the confessional statement of the defendant, by evidence of an eye witness to the commission of the offence or by circumstantial evidence – OKUDO V. STATE (2011) 3 NWLR (PT. 1234) 209. In the instant case, the prosecution relied mainly on the confessional statement of the Appellant and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides:-
“A confession is an admission made at a time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” For conspiracy, it is said to occur when two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means – SOWEMIMO V. STATE (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 284) 387. It is an act that is shrouded in secrecy and so there is hardly any direct evidence. It is most times inferred. PER YAHAYA, J.C.A

WHETHER OR NOT A DEFENDANT CAN BE CONVICTED ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE

The law is trite. A defendant can be convicted on his confessional statement alone, without corroboration, if it is shown to be direct and unequivocal, positive and clear, was duly made and satisfactorily proved. The Court must have no doubt concerning these attributes – OCHE V. STATE (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1027) 214 AND NWAEZE V. STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 428) 1. PER YAHAYA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST HAVE A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

When a defendant retracts his confessional statement, it is desirous to have corroborative evidence, an independent evidence outside the confession that will show it to be true. However, whether a confessional statement is retracted or not, the Courts have evolved guidelines, to determine its truth and quality – UBIERHO V. STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 919) 644; ONYENYE V. STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (PT. 1324) 586 AND DAWA V. STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C 236.
The guidelines are whether:-
a. there is some evidence no matter how slight, outside the confession to show that it is true;
b. it was corroborated;
c. the facts stated therein are true as can be tested;
d. the defendant had the opportunity to commit the offence;
e. the confession was possible; and
f. the confession is consistent with other facts which had been ascertained. PER YAHAYA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NO THE NATURE OF A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE REQUIRES TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The Supreme Court has stated that the nature of the corroborative evidence required to verify the contents of a confessional statement does not need to be direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence and that it is sufficient even if it is only circumstantially connecting or tending to connect him with its commission – Queen Vs Obiasa (1962) 2 SCNLR 402, Achabua Vs The State (1976) 12 SC 63, Durugo Vs State (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt 255) 525, Ubierho Vs State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 919) 644, Nguma Vs Attorney General, Imo State (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt 1405) 119, State Vs Gwangwan (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt 1477) 600, Famuyiwa Vs State (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt 1613) 515, Sale Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1705) 205. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal has emanated from the High Court of Birnin Kudu, Jigawa State in Charge No. JDU/11C/2003. The Judgment was delivered on 18th March, 2005 wherein the Appellant who was the fourth defendant tried with eight others, was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery. Miffed by the decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal which he amended and was deemed filed on 20th January, 2020.

The facts from the record of proceedings, are that the Appellant and eight others, whilst armed with dangerous weapons, conspired and robbed Alhaji Ibrahim Umar PW1 of sums of money amounting to N800,000.00 at his residence in Durumin Dishe Auyakawa Quarters of Old Gwaram in Jigawa, on or about the 30th November, 2001. The prosecution called five witnesses and tendered the confessional statements of the defendants and other exhibits including two locally made pistols, one dane gun, two knives and a sharp iron pipe. Each defendants testified on his own behalf but did not call any witnesses. Each of the defendants denied making the

confessional statements tendered by the prosecution. The trial Court therefore admitted them in evidence. All the defendants were convicted and sentenced. Hence this appeal on two grounds.

Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Victor Agunzi settled the Appellant’s brief filed on the 19th December, 2019 but deemed filed on 20th January, 2020. In it, he identified a single issue for determination to be:-
“Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death by hanging for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery when the ingredients of the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

In his argument, counsel submitted that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as enshrined in Section 131 of the Evidence Act and the cases of OMOKO V. STATE (2014) VOL. 3 WRN 96 AT 104, AND OKOH V. STATE (2014) VOL. 31 WRN 53 AT 57. He argued that the prosecution did not prove the offence of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the ingredients of which have been spelt out in OSETOLA V. STATE (2012) 17 NWLR

(PT. 1329) 251 AT 255, because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3) was not compelling enough to ground conviction of the offence of armed robbery. He submitted that the evidence of these witnesses did not link the Appellant to the commission of armed robbery. He opined that PW2 should have been able to identify the Appellant or any of the other defendants who robbed her. He then referred to the evidence of the Appellant showing that he did not participate in the robbery and none of the prosecution witnesses identified him or linked him to the offence. He referred to the case of STATE V. ISAH (SUPRA) on which witnesses are vital to the prosecution in proving the case of armed robbery.

Counsel argued that the inability of the prosecution witnesses to link the Appellant with the robbery ought to have created a doubt in the mind of the trial Court not to rely on his confessional statement which was retracted. Further, the fact that it was the Appellant who himself went to the police station twice when he was told that he was wanted, should be a strong indication of his innocence and a doubt created in the mind of the Court, he argued.

He referred to BASSEY V. STATE (2012) 12 NWLR (PT. 1314) 209 AT 216 to submit that a doubt should be resolved in favour of the defendant.

Counsel submitted that none of the exhibits tendered had any connection with the case of the Appellant, and that PW2 and PW3 did not say they saw any weapon. Only PW3 said he saw one of them holding a stick, not a weapon he argued. Further, that none of the weapons was shown to belong to any of the accused persons or the Appellant. He concluded by urging us to discharge and acquit the Appellant as there was no evidence warranting his conviction.

In his response, learned counsel for the Respondent Dr. M. A. Aliyu, Hon Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Jigawa State, who settled the brief filed on 1st June 2020 but deemed filed on 2nd June, 2020 identified one issue also for determination. He surmised:-
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt thereby convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death by hanging for the offence of criminal conspiracy and armed robbery.”

As both issues are similar, I shall utilize

the issue distilled by the Appellant.

Counsel for the Respondent referred to the cases of ESENE V. STATE (2017) EJSC (VOL.70) 83 S.C; BOZIN V. STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 8) 465, AND AKINLOLA V. STATE (2017) EJSC (VOL.54) 34 S.C. On the ingredients of armed robbery and submitted that the prosecution placed reliance on the confessional statement of the Appellant and the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 to prove its case. He submitted also, that the Appellant made a voluntary statement confessing to the commission of the offence, which was tendered “without any objection from the Appellant whether on the voluntariness of the statement or the denial of making the statement” making it clear that its contents are true and so the trial Court was bound to consider it in determining the probative value of the total evidence adduced by the prosecution. He then quoted in extenso, the Judgment of the trial Court. It was therefore surprising that learned counsel, contrary to this submission, in paragraph 4.5 of the brief, went on at paragraph 4.8 of the brief, to say that “the Appellant resiling or retracting his confessional statement does not make it

inadmissible, rather the Court is then obliged to consider the weight to be attached to the statement…”. He then referred to IKPO V. STATE (2016) 2-3 S. C (PT. 111); BLESSING V. F.R.N (2015) 13 NWLR (PT. 1475) 1; MOHAMMED V. STATE (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045) and OKOH V. STATE (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1410) 502, to submit that a confessional statement which is direct, positive and voluntary is sufficient to establish solely, the guilt of an accused person as there is no evidence that is stronger than it.

On corroboration, learned counsel for the Respondent, argued that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are independent facts which have corroborated the evidence of the Appellant, especially as they are clear, unimpeachable and uncontroverted. Being substantial, they have established the guilt of the Appellant he argued. He pointed out that there is no credible defence for the Appellant.

The Appellant was charged with conspiracy and armed robbery. For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of armed robbery, it must establish that:-
a. There was robbery;
b. The robbery was an armed robbery; and
c. The defendant participated in

the armed robbery.
See OLAYINKA V. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 561; MAIGARI V. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 439 and BELLO V. STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 564 AT 588 – 589.

For conspiracy, it is said to occur when two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means – SOWEMIMO V. STATE (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 284) 387. It is an act that is shrouded in secrecy and so there is hardly any direct evidence. It is most times inferred.

PW4 of the State CID Dutse, gave evidence and the confessional statement of the Appellant as the fourth accused person was tendered, as well as for other accused persons. The Appellant objected to its admissibility “only to the contents of the statement”. He was thus denying the confessional statement and not saying that he made it involuntarily. It was admitted as Exhibit 5d(i) for the Hausa Version and 5d(ii) for its English translation. That was in order because when

a defendant retracts his confessional statement, it is open to the trial Court to admit and consider the weight to attach to it, in its judgment – DIBIE V. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1038) 30. When a defendant retracts his confessional statement, it is desirous to have corroborative evidence, an independent evidence outside the confession that will show it to be true. However, whether a confessional statement is retracted or not, the Courts have evolved guidelines, to determine its truth and quality – UBIERHO V. STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 919) 644; ONYENYE V. STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (PT. 1324) 586 AND DAWA V. STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C 236.
The guidelines are whether:-
a. there is some evidence no matter how slight, outside the confession to show that it is true;
b. it was corroborated;
c. the facts stated therein are true as can be tested;
d. the defendant had the opportunity to commit the offence;
e. the confession was possible; and
f. the confession is consistent with other facts which had been ascertained.

It is expedient to reproduce some excerpts of the confessional statement of the Appellant translated into

English as per Exhibit 5(d)(ii):
“…I could remember about one year ago I was first introduced into robbery operation through one Aminu Yakubu of old Gwaram. And I could remember about nine months ago on one Wednesday at about 1600hrs I met with the following people (1) Myself Yahaya Aliyu (2) Maigoro Ali (3) Danliti Audu (4) Audu Umaru alias Gulabe (5) Shuaibu Idris alias Boka (6) Abdullahi Bala (7) Salisu Mohammed alias Tigam (8) Adamu Abubakar alias Lalala (9) Auwalu Nadabo alias Danashaka (10) Sani Sabo (11) Yakubu Babe (12) Aminu Yakubu (13) Ali Mohammed and we all met at Dole Market at old Gwaram and amongst of us the first person bring the suggestion of this operation, it was Yakubu Babe.…. We finally suggested that we should meet again on some date at about 0000hrs for going robbery operation in the house of one Alhaji Ibrahim of Durumin Dishe Quarters Old Gwaram. And we all gathered and arranged and preceded to the said house at about 0200hrs, and we discovered that the fence of the house was tall. I quickly went to our house because we are closed neighbor to our house and bring a ladder. When bringing the ladder Maigoro Ali and

Aminu Yakubu climbed the ladder and opened the main gate, as a result Danliti and Adamu Abubakar Lalala, Auwalu Nadabo Dan Ashaka, Abdullahi Bala, Yakubu Babe entered the house and I took (sic) the ladder back home when I returned back I discovered they have already finished the operation and saw Yakubu Babe with a bag in his hand and it was money. And from there we jointly went to Gwaram rock and divided the money and it was Yakubu Babe gave me my share the sum of One thousand two hundred naira N1,200; no shoot was made but those armed with guns are (1) myself Yahaya Aliyu armed with locally made rifle (2) Shuaibu Idris Boka and (3) Sani Sabo all armed with locally made arms and lastly (4) Yakubu Babe was armed with Automatic police rifle…”

From Exhibit 5(d)(ii) above, it is clear that the Appellant and others had met, agreed and planned to rob PW1. They went to the house and executed what they jointly planned to do. They agreed to commit an offence, to wit armed robbery, as their common objective. The confessional statement shows that the Appellant conspired with others and they all participated in robbing PW1, whilst they were armed.

The agreement to do an illegal act is what has been established and thus the offence of conspiracy had been established.

On the offence of armed robbery, it is clear that Exhibit 5d(ii) is a translation of Exhibit 5d(i), the confessional statement of the Appellant. In it, he gave details of the places they met and hatched the plot. He gave the time they set out to go to the house of PW1 in order to rob him. The Appellant stated how it was he who had to go to his house which was near-by, to get a ladder to enable the members of the gang to scale the high wall of the house of PW1. He stated the names of the people amongst the gang, who climbed the wall and opened the gate and the names of those who entered the house in order to carry out the nefarious act of all of them. He saw and gave the name of the person amongst the gang, who came out of the house with a bag containing money. He stated how they now left for Gwaram Rock and shared the proceeds of the armed robbery, and he got One Thousand Two Hundred Naira as his share. He gave details of who was carrying what type of guns amongst the gang members. The confessional statements (Exhibits 5 d(i) and (ii)

have clearly shown that there was a robbery in the house of PW1 on 30th November, 2002. At the time of the robbery, the Appellant and the co-conspirators he named, were armed with locally made guns and police automatic rifle. The Appellant himself, was carrying a locally-made rifle. These were details that nobody, apart from a participant would have known. The police investigators could not have known them. That shows the truthfulness of the confessional statement and also the fact that it had placed the Appellant squarely on the scene of the crime, showing the opportunity he had, to commit the offence. The date of the robbery and the arms used, which have been recovered have established that the confessional statement is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established. That the fact that the Appellant and his co-conspirators were armed is most probably true since the arms have been recovered from the accused persons.

With all these, it is established, that the confessional statement of the Appellant was true. It is direct, precise unequivocal and points to the guilt of the Appellant. What about corroboration? Are there any facts

outside the confessional statement to show its authenticity and reliability? This is because no Court should entertain a confessional statement and rely on it to convict, if it has any doubt about its truthfulness.

PW1, the victim of the robbery, gave evidence and stated the date of the robbery and that it was at night. He was threatened, beaten to a coma and that he was injured. He was not cross-examined and his evidence is therefore unchallenged, accepted by the defence, as the truth. It corroborates the confessional statement of the Appellant. It explains why PW1 did not see the Appellant, as he was outside the house. Again, PW1 did not say he was shot. This corroborates the confessional statement of the Appellant that there was no shooting. PW2 also testified and she was not cross-examined. Her evidence is unchallenged. She corroborated the date and time of the robbery as stated in the confessional statement. She stated how she was threatened to be shot and killed if she did not give the attackers money. They stole money and left. Her testimony shows that the attackers were armed, as they threatened to shoot and kill her if she did not give them

money. Again it corroborates the evidence of PW1 who said he was beaten into coma as she saw him unconscious in a pool of blood. She was categorical that they were armed as she said:-
“…the money was stolen from the room by the armed bandits…” (underline mine).

The evidence of PW4 is that the houses of the defendants were searched and items including locally-made guns were recovered. Also, he was the one who recorded the voluntary statement of the Appellant which the Appellant signed and which his superior officer counter-signed. His evidence shows that the Appellant infact made the confessional statement – Exhibit 5d(i). I have looked at it, there is the signature of the Appellant on it and an endorsement by the superior officer A.G Hussaini. His evidence has corroborated the confessional statement, that it was made voluntarily. Although the Appellant objected when it was being tendered, it was on the ground that he was objecting to the contents. He did not deny that his signature was on it. The testimony of PW4 also corroborates the confessional statement of the Appellant, when he stated that they recovered arms from the houses of the defendants.

In his defence, the Appellant only denied the charge against him. He did not think it fit to state where he was at the material time, that is, in another place other than where his confessional statement had fixed him to be. It would have raised doubt on the mind of the trial Court, as to whether the confessional statement was true or not. As it is, his denial without more, had not raised any doubt about the authenticity of his confessional statement. There is nothing he said in his testimony before the Court, that even remotely showed a different story from his confessional statement, its being recanted notwithstanding. The prosecution had thus succeeded in linking the Appellant to the armed robbery on that fateful night. It is not fatal that it is not stated which arms were recovered from which of the defendants, or that the Appellant was not confronted with the recovered weapons.

Therefore, there was cogent, sufficient and compelling evidence led by the prosecution in proving the charges against the Appellant. His confessional statement corroborated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW4 have established the

guilt of the Appellant. The trial Court had evaluated the evidence and had come to the right decision. We see no reason to interfere with its findings and conclusion. The prosecution had discharged its duty of proving the offences against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The lone issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

In the premise, I find no merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss it. I affirm the conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant in the Judgment of the High Court Birnin Kudu in Charge No. JDU/11C/2003, delivered on the 18th March, 2005.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Abubakar Datti Yahaya, JCA. His Lordship has ably considered and resolved all the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide by the conclusions reached therein.

This appeal arose out of a criminal trial. The Appellant was charged, along with others, for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. It is settled law that the prosecution always bears the burden of

proving all the essential ingredients of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. Therefore, if in a criminal trial, on the whole of the evidence before it, the Court is left in a state of doubt, the prosecution would have failed to discharge the burden of proof which the law lays upon it and the defendant will be entitled to an acquittal. It must, however, be stated that proof beyond reasonable doubt is “not proof to the hilt” and is thus not synonymous with proof beyond all iota of doubt. Thus, if the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable”, the case will be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also settled law that in a criminal trial the Prosecution may prove the guilt of the defendant either by direct eve witness account or by circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of a defendant can be inferred or by a free and voluntary confessional statement of guilt which is direct and positive Alao Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 501, Itodo Vs State (2020)

1 NWLR (Pt 1704) 1.

In the present case, the Respondent relied on the confessional statement of the Appellant as well as on the eye witness accounts of first, second and third prosecution witness and the evidence of the two Investigating Police Officers, the fourth and fifth prosecution witnesses. The Appellant objected to the tendering of the confessional statement on the ground that it was not his statement and was not made by him. The lower Court was obligated in the circumstances to test the veracity of the confessional statement before relying on it, and to do so by subjecting it to the six-way test laid down by the case law authorities and by seeking for evidence outside the confessional statement that point to the truth of its contents- Onyenye Vs State (2012) LPELR 7866 (SC), Ofordike Vs State (2019) LPELR 46411(SC), Alao Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt 1702) 501. In discharging the obligation, the lower Court found in the judgment that the testimonies of the first to the fifth prosecution witnesses corroborated the contents of the confessional statement in material particulars and pointed to their truth and to the fact that it was made by the

Appellant. The lower Court convicted the Appellant on the strength of both the confessional statement and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

In contending against the findings of the lower Court, Counsel to the Appellant argued that the evidence of the first to the fifth prosecution witness were not compelling and substantial enough, on their own, to ground the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for armed robbery. Counsel thereafter suggested there from that the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses could thus not serve as proper corroborative evidence for the confessional statement of the Appellant so as to sustain the finding of the lower Court. Counsel, with respect, obvious missed the essence of corroborative evidence for a confessional statement. Corroborative evidence merely means evidence that supports or strengthens the likely truth of the contents of the confessional statement and it does not have to be in the exact or very like words as those in the confessional statement – Okabichi Vs State (1975) NSCC 124, Dagayya Vs State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt 980) 637. Corroborative evidence required to verify the contents of a confessional

statement does not need to be direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence nor does it need to amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the accused defendant in the statement – Kolade Vs State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt 1566) 60, Abdullahi Vs State (2018) LPELR 44455(CA).
The Supreme Court has stated that the nature of the corroborative evidence required to verify the contents of a confessional statement does not need to be direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence and that it is sufficient even if it is only circumstantially connecting or tending to connect him with its commission – Queen Vs Obiasa (1962) 2 SCNLR 402, Achabua Vs The State (1976) 12 SC 63, Durugo Vs State (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt 255) 525, Ubierho Vs State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 919) 644, Nguma Vs Attorney General, Imo State (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt 1405) 119, State Vs Gwangwan (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt 1477) 600, Famuyiwa Vs State (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt 1613) 515, Sale Vs State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1705) 205. In other words, pieces of evidence which on their own might not constitute cogent and credible evidence to sustain the charge against an accused person, can amount to

adequate corroborative evidence of the contents of his confessional statement. Thus, it has been held by the Supreme Court that even medical evidence of the nature of injury inflicted on a deceased in a murder trial can act as corroborative evidence of a confessional statement of an accused person – Gira Vs State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt 443) 375 and Igri Vs State (2012)16 NWLR (Pt 1327) 522.

A read through the testimonies of the first, second, third and fifth prosecution witnesses shows clearly that they supported and strengthened the correctness of different parts of the contents of the confessional statement of the Appellant and they connected him to the commission of the offences charged. They constituted adequate corroborative evidence of the confessional statement of the Appellant. The law is that a trial Court can convict an accused person on his confessional statement, notwithstanding that it has been retracted, so long it finds evidence outside the confessional statement which corroborates the contents thereof – Nsofor Vs State (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt 905) 292, Ubierho Vs State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 919) 644, Igba Vs State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt 1614) 44,

Eyop Vs State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 273. The contents of the confessional statement as reproduced in the lead judgment are a direct, cogent and unequivocal admission by the Appellant of the part he played in the commission of the offences charged and, as stated earlier, they were adequately corroborated by the evidence of the first, second, third and fifth prosecution witness. The finding of the lower Court that the Respondent led credible evidence to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt was thus correct.

It is for these reasons and the fuller exposition of the law in the lead judgment that I too find no merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss same. I affirm the judgment of the High Court of Jigawa State delivered in Case No JDU/11C/2003 by Honorable Justice Aminu Sabo Ringim on the 18th of March, 2005 as well as the conviction of and sentence passed on the Appellant therein.

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I have read before now, in draft form the judgment of my learned brother ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA JCA just delivered. I entirely agree with his reasoning and conclusion that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. I have nothing

useful to add. I join my learned brother in dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant passed by the lower Court on 18th March, 2005 in Charge No. JDU/11C/2003.

Appearances:

Victor Agunzi, Esq., with him, Emmanuel Shodeinde, Esq., and J. B. Alaci, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu (Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Jigawa State) with him, Aliyu H. Hassan, Esq. (Senior State Counsel) Ministry of Justice, Jigawa State. For Respondent(s)

LawCare Nigeria

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT LAW FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA

Protecting Minority Shareholders in a Nigerian Company

Agency and Distribution Agreements in Nigeria: What You Need to Know

Franchising Your Business in Nigeria: Key Legal Considerations

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED