ABDULLAHI v. STATE (2020)

ABDULLAHI v. STATE

(2020)LCN/14531(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020

CA/YL/214C/19

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

SAIDU ABDULLAHI APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A TRIAL COURT IS BOUND TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN A PARTICULAR WAY TO FAVOUR A PARTY

The trial Court was not bound to exercise its discretion in a particular way or to bend over backwards to favour the appellant who was represented by counsel. See, A – G RIVERS STATE VS. UDE (2006) 17 NWLR PT. 1008, PAGE 435 at 460 – 461, PARAS. H – A, UDO VS. THE STATE(1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 316, CEEKAY TRADERS LTD VS. GENERAL MOTORS CO. LTD (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 2220) 132 at 147 and CHELLARAMS PLS VS. PASHTUN NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2014) LPELR – 23623 (CA). I am of the humble view that justice must not be viewed only from the accused person’s end but, there must also be justice from the end of the wronged. See, RABIU VS. KANO STATE (1980) LPELR – 2936 (SC) 115 – 116, PARAS. G – C. PER UWA, J.C.A.

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

In a criminal trial, all that is required of the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt and not without a shadow of doubt. Therefore, there must be evidence which links the accused person with the offence and that it was his act that caused the offence. See, OBUE VS. STATE (1976) LPELR – 2195 (SC) P. 9, PARAS. C – D and SUNKANMI ADEBESIN VS. THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 22694 (SC) P. 42, PARAS. D – E. PER UWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A SOLE WITNESS CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION IS ENOUGH TO PROVE THE PROSECUTION’S CASE AT TRIAL

The learned counsel to the Appellant had argued that the sole witness called by the prosecution was not enough to have proved the prosecution’s case at the trial. To this I would say that there is no law that imposes on the prosecution the number of witnesses to call to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the important thing is the quality of the evidence adduced. For this reason, a conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole witness if it is credible and not dislodged by the defence. See, ADAMU VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46902 (SC) PP. 22 – 34, PARAS. D – A, ODILI VS. STATE (1977) LPELR – 2221 (SC) P. 10, PARAS. C – D and ALONGE VS. POLICE (1959) 4 F.S.C. 203, ADISA VS. STATE (2014) LPELR – 24221 (SC) at 28 – 29, F – A and AFOLALU VS. THE STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 584. PER UWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE IN THE NIGERIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

No other person other than the culprit can give a better account of a crime he has committed. In the case of JOHN VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46936 (SC) P. 17, PARAS. E – G, his lordship, Okoro, JSC summarized the position of the law thus:
“It is settled law that a confessional statement is the best evidence in our criminal procedure. Once it is admitted in evidence; the trial Court can safely convict an accused person based on his confessional statement. See, SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 937) 460, IGRI VS. STATE (2012) 16 NWLR (PT. 1327) 522 AT 542.”
See, also ACHABUA VS. STATE (1976) LPELR – 63 (SC) P. 8, PARAS. A – C; (1975) 10 NSCC 714 and KOPA VS. STATE (1971) LPELR – 1702 (SC) PP. 3 – 4, PARA. E. A conviction can solely be on a confessional statement alone without corroboration as long as the Court is satisfied that the confession is true. PER UWA, J.C.A.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State delivered on 20th May, 2019 by Nathan Musa, J. At the close of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code Laws, Cap 98 Vol. III Laws of Adamawa State, 1997.

The background facts are that on or about the 19/3/2013 at Tarawo Ward, of Song Local Government Area of Adamawa State, the appellant caused the death of a newly born baby by strangling the said baby with intent to cause his death. In proof of its case, the prosecution called a sole witness and closed its case. The appellant did not enter any defense but, his learned counsel opted to rest his case on that of the prosecution. At the close of the trial, the appellant was convicted as charged.

The Appellant who was dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to this Court. The following two issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal thus:
(i) “Whether the Accused person (herein Appellant) was deprived of his right to fair hearing when the

learned Trial Judge refused to adjourn the matter to enable Defence Counsel to present his final written address (Distilled from ground 3 (three) of the Notice of Appeal)
(ii) Whether there is any substantial evidence placed before the trial Court upon which the offence of murder had been proved to warrant the conviction of the appellant.” (Distilled from ground 1, 2 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal)

The Respondent on her part formulated the following issues for the determination of the appeal:
(i) “Whether the prosecution has proved the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) Whether the Appellant was denied fair hearing before the Trial High Court.”

In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant, Salihu Adamu Esq. adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 7/11/19 as his argument in this appeal in urging us to allow the appeal and to quash the conviction and sentence, discharge and acquit the appellant. In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that where an accused person is charged with a capital offence, the accused person has a right to have his defence conducted by a legal

practitioner. See, GODWIN JOSIAH VS. STATE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 1) PAGE 125, RATIO 1. It was alleged that even though the trial Court assigned the legal practitioner that represented the appellant at the trial, the trial Court denied the accused person the right to file his written address through his counsel. Also, that the trial Court did not allow an adjournment for filing the appellant’s written address on the grounds of ill health but, instead adjourned for judgment. The hearing was said to have been unfair. See, CHIEF EZENYILI UZOWULU & ORS VS. MR. OFULUE AKPOR & ORS (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 763) P. 1954 at 1958. It was submitted that the trial Court proceeding in the absence of the defence counsel amounted to a breach of fair hearing; reference was made to pages 39 – 41 of the printed records of appeal.

In arguing his second issue, it was submitted that proof lies on the prosecution. See, ADEOYE ALIU VS. THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 782) PAGE 1706 at 1710. See, JOHN OLOMO VS. THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 779) PAGE 1028 at 1030. Further, that the prosecution wrongly relied only on the purported confessional statement of the accused

person failed to lead any cogent and credible evidence to suggest the guilt of the accused person. For the offence of murder to be proved, reliance was placed on the case of KUNLE SHONUBI VS. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 801) PAGE 1422 at 1464 and AJAY PATIL (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 775) PAGE 228 at P. 232. It was submitted that the prosecution failed to call the mother of the child or any of the relations whom the exhumed body of the deceased was handed over to for burial to testify as given in evidence by the IPO who testified as the PW1. We were urged not to affirm the conviction of the appellant on speculation or suspicion, reliance was placed on AMADI VS. STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 314)at 644. Also, to allow the appeal, quash the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant, discharge and acquit the Appellant.

In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent M.B. Rufai Esq. Senior State Counsel II (SSCII) Ministry of Justice Adamawa State adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 9/12/19 as his argument in this appeal in urging us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court. In arguing his first

issue, it was submitted that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Further, that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean calling dozens of witnesses in support of the allegation, as a single witness is sufficient if the Court is satisfied with his testimony, reliance was placed on the case of ABIODUN VS. THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 664) P. 110 at PAGES 122 – 124, PARAS. G – B. It was argued that the single witness called by the prosecution was sufficient to ground the conviction of the appellant.

In arguing his issue two, it was submitted that the appellant was not represented by counsel; the trial Court ordered that the Legal Aid Counsel, Yola should enter appearance and defend the appellant following which F.E. Ogbe Esq., Principal Legal Officer of the Legal Aid Council Yola appeared and represented the appellant from mention to judgment. It was argued that the Appellant was given the opportunity to reply to the prosecution’s address but, failed to utilize the opportunity. It was concluded that the appellant was given fair hearing at the trial Court.

The issues formulated for the

determination of the appeal are similar. The Appellant’s first issue is similar to that of the Respondent’s issue two, while the Appellant’s second issue is similar to that of the Respondent’s first issue. I will resolve the issues in the order they were formulated and argued by the Appellant.

The first issue is whether the appellant was denied fair hearing when the trial Court refused to adjourn the matter to enable the defence counsel to present his final written address? I would start with a definition of what fair hearing is. Fair hearing means a trial conducted according to all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties, it encompasses the twin pillars of justice: audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua in respect of what is not right and fair to all concerned but, at the same time seems to be so. See, BAMGBOYE VS. UNILORIN & ANOR (1999) LPELR – 737 (SC) P. 50, PARAS. B – D, MOHAMMED VS. OLAWUNMI & ORS. (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 133) 458 at 485; NWOKORO & ORS. VS. ONUMA & ANOR. (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 136) 22. On the other hand, lack of fair hearing is where the hearing

contravenes the principles of natural justice.

In the case of EFFIOM VS. THE STATE (1995) LPELR – 1026 (SC); (1995) 1 NWLR PT. 373 P. 507, the Supreme Court held that “The true test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether, from his observation, justice had been done in this case.”

The question is: Looking at the Court proceedings, was the Appellant deprived of his right to fair hearing when the trial Court refused to adjourn the matter to enable the defence present his final written address? From the printed records of appeal, at page 34, the proceedings of the trial Court of 21st May, 2018, the prosecution after calling a sole witness closed its case because the prospective witnesses could not be traced. On 28th June, 2018, the matter came up again, the appellant’s counsel was not in Court. The Court made the following order:
Court: “This shall have a last adjournment at the instance of the accused with an order that if on the adjourned date counsel to Accused refused to appear in Court, the Court shall have no option other than to allow the Accused to open his

defence personally since he has indicated his interest to do so. Case adjourned to 23/6/2018.”
There is no record of what transpired on 23/6/2018 but, on 23rd July, 2018 from the Court’s records, the learned counsel to the Appellant wrote a letter for adjournment as informed by the clerk of Court. In reaction to the said letter, the Court for the second time ordered as follows:
Court: “This case shall have a last adjournment at the instance of the accused, with an order that at the adjourned date if the Accused counsel is not ready to proceed on such a flimsy reason, I shall take all the necessary steps to sanction the counsel who is primarily employed by the Federal Government to handle matters in Court and not engage himself in activities not covered by the act that established Legal Aid Council. Case adjourned to 26/7/2018 for continuation of hearing.”
On the adjourned date of 26/7/2018, the learned counsel to the appellant was in Court but, did not open his defence, the matter was then adjourned to 17/10/18 for the learned counsel’s no case submission.
The matter did not come up again until 12th November,

The learned counsel to the Appellant was not ready to make his no case submission; he asked for a date, the matter was adjourned to 5/12/18 for defence, page 37 of the printed records of appeal. Again, on 5/12/18, the learned counsel to the appellant informed the Court that he was not ready for his no case submission. The case was once again adjourned to 17/1/2019 for definite commencement of defence or else the defence would be foreclosed. On the said 17/1/19 at pages 38 – 39 of the printed records of appeal, the learned counsel F.A. Ogbe Esq. stated as follows:
Ogbe: “Case for defence. However we don’t intend to call evidence. We rest our case on that of the prosecution.
Rufai: I ask for a date to file my written address.
Court: 14 days for prosecution file his address (sic), and the defence also has 14 days to reply if necessary. Case adjourned to 28/2/2019 for adoption.”
On the said 28/2/2019, the learned counsel to the Respondent was in Court and ready to adopt his written address but, the learned counsel to the appellant asked for adjournment in a letter on the ground of ill health. The trial Court

recalled the events of 17/1/2019 to the effect that the learned counsel to the appellant had opted not to defend or call any evidence but, relied on the prosecution’s case and recapped that the parties had agreed on 14 days on each side to file their written addresses. At page 40 of the printed records, the trial Court in reaction to the letter for adjournment made the following observation:
“Today counsel to the Accused is asking for an adjournment. The question that need (sic) to be asked is adjournment for what. When counsel to Accused has refused or neglected to file reply to the address of the prosecution. In any case, in the last adjournment Ogbe asked for 14 days to file reply to address of the prosecution if necessary. The fact that he has not file (sic) any reply means that counsel did not see need to do so, therefore the prosecution is to go ahead to adopt his written address. I shall then adjourned (sic) the case as prayed by the counsel to the Accused for no other this (sic) but, for judgment.”
Thereafter, the learned counsel to the Respondent adopted his written address and the Court adjourned to 29/2/19 for judgment.

From the proceedings of the trial Court and in particular the above view, the learned counsel to the appellant was given an opportunity to present his final address but, he failed to do so. As rightly found by the trial Court, the learned counsel probably saw no need to have filed a reply to the Respondent’s written address. I am of the humble opinion that not having defended but, relied on the case of the prosecution he had nothing to urge the Court. There is nothing on record to show that the trial Court failed to give the appellant an opportunity to file his reply. The matter was adjourned several times at the instance of the appellant’s counsel, the learned counsel also failed to argue his no case submission after indicating that he would do so, also failed to defend. In an earlier decision of AJADI OBA RASHEED VS. THE STATE (2015) LPELR – 41840 (CA) P. 2, PARA. D. I held that: “Justice is for both parties and expeditious disposal of criminal matters is important.”
On the other hand, the grant or refusal of adjournment is at the discretion of the Court. The trial Court gave its reasons for adjourning for judgment in

that the parties had asked for and agreed on 14 days on each side to file the address and reply by both counsel, the matter was then fixed for adoption of the written addresses. It is also clear from the records of appeal that the trial Court considered what had transpired when the parties agreed on the number of days to file their written address and reply respectively. The trial Court was not bound to exercise its discretion in a particular way or to bend over backwards to favour the appellant who was represented by counsel. See, A – G RIVERS STATE VS. UDE (2006) 17 NWLR PT. 1008, PAGE 435 at 460 – 461, PARAS. H – A, UDO VS. THE STATE(1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 316, CEEKAY TRADERS LTD VS. GENERAL MOTORS CO. LTD (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 2220) 132 at 147 and CHELLARAMS PLS VS. PASHTUN NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2014) LPELR – 23623 (CA). I am of the humble view that justice must not be viewed only from the accused person’s end but, there must also be justice from the end of the wronged. See, RABIU VS. KANO STATE (1980) LPELR – 2936 (SC) 115 – 116, PARAS. G – C. There is nothing on record to show that the principles of natural

justice have been breached to result in lack of fair hearing. The Appellant was given fair hearing and an opportunity to file his reply but, failed to do so. The appellant’s issue one fails and is resolved against him.

The Appellant’s second issue is whether the offence of culpable homicide for which the appellant stood trial was proved to warrant his conviction? In a criminal trial, all that is required of the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt and not without a shadow of doubt. Therefore, there must be evidence which links the accused person with the offence and that it was his act that caused the offence. See, OBUE VS. STATE (1976) LPELR – 2195 (SC) P. 9, PARAS. C – D and SUNKANMI ADEBESIN VS. THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 22694 (SC) P. 42, PARAS. D – E.

adduced. For this reason, a conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole witness if it is credible and not dislodged by the defence. See, ADAMU VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46902 (SC) PP. 22 – 34, PARAS. D – A, ODILI VS. STATE (1977) LPELR – 2221 (SC) P. 10, PARAS. C – D and ALONGE VS. POLICE (1959) 4 F.S.C. 203, ADISA VS. STATE (2014) LPELR – 24221 (SC) at 28 – 29, F – A and AFOLALU VS. THE STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 584.
The learned counsel had faulted the Respondent not having called the mother of the child to testify, it is not required that the prosecution should call every available evidence to prove its case, a single witness is sufficient for the discharge of the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Exhibit ‘A’ is the statement of the Appellant which was voluntarily made. I will hereunder reproduce portions of the said statement.
“What happen (sic) was that sometime last year 2012, I and one Aisha “F” of the same address engaged in friendship, we have been together for a long period of time, we wanted to get married to each other but we couldn’t due to

some reasons beyond our control, so in the course of our friendship I happen to pregnant her, and we are not legally (sic) married, so in the month of March 2013 she put to birth (sic) a baby girl, so on the 19/3/2013 at about 20.00hrs the said Aisha ‘F’ brought the little girl to me, she handed it over to me over a long argument between us, at last she left me with the baby and went back to their house, at about 20.30hrs of the same date I personally took the baby to the nearby river bank and strangulated the baby to death. I didn’t seek the consent of anybody before carrying out this act, and the reason why I done (sic) it is that it is a taboo in our Fulani culture to have a child when you are not legally married. So to me I considered it a shameful thing for me to keep the baby as mine. So after killing the baby I buried the corpse at same river, and came back home the next day being 20/3/2013, I am on exile to Hong L.G.A., later in the month of November 2013 I came back to my house at Song, but unfortunately enough I was arrested. To be frank I personally commit (sic) the offence without the help of anybody, and I really regret my action.”

Looking at Exhibit “A”, the Appellant confessed to the commission of the offence charged. From the reproduced portion of the Appellant’s statement, it can be likened to a plea of guilty to the offence charged. See, NWACHUKWU VS. STATE (2007) LPELR – 8075 (SC) P. 36, PARA. E, ABASI VS. STATE (1992) LPELR – 20 (SC) P. 31, PARAS. D – E, UGBOJI VS. STATE (2017) LPELR – 43427 (SC) P. 32, PARAS. D – E and SAIDU VS. THE STATE (1982) 4 SC 41. There is no doubt that Exhibit ‘A’ was voluntarily made, where a statement by an accused person is direct, positive, unequivocal and voluntarily made as in the present case, a conviction can be rightly founded upon it. See, AGBOOLA VS. STATE (2013) LPELR – 20652 (SC) P. 50, PARAS. D – E, ASUQUO VS. STATE (2016) LPELR – 40597 (SC) P. 23, PARAS. B – D and IKEMSON VS. STATE (1989) 1 CLRN. It is clear in the present case that the appellant committed the offence and gave an uninhibited account of how and why he strangled the baby girl and buried her by the riverbank. No other person other than the culprit can give a better account

of a crime he has committed. In the case of JOHN VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46936 (SC) P. 17, PARAS. E – G, his lordship, Okoro, JSC summarized the position of the law thus:
“It is settled law that a confessional statement is the best evidence in our criminal procedure. Once it is admitted in evidence; the trial Court can safely convict an accused person based on his confessional statement. See, SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 937) 460, IGRI VS. STATE (2012) 16 NWLR (PT. 1327) 522 AT 542.”
See, also ACHABUA VS. STATE (1976) LPELR – 63 (SC) P. 8, PARAS. A – C; (1975) 10 NSCC 714 and KOPA VS. STATE (1971) LPELR – 1702 (SC) PP. 3 – 4, PARA. E. A conviction can solely be on a confessional statement alone without corroboration as long as the Court is satisfied that the confession is true. There is nothing on record that would have impugned on the truth of the appellant’s confessional statement. No wonder the appellant did not put up any evidence in defence but, relied on the prosecution’s case which proved that the appellant committed the offence for which he was charged. A conviction can

rightly be sustained on the appellant’s confessional statement alone as has happened in this case. The appellant had no defence and from his confessional statement alone, the trial Court was right to have held that the offence of culpable homicide was proved against the appellant. The second issue is resolved against the Appellant.

In sum, the appeal is dismissed for being unmeritorious. The judgment of the trial Court (conviction and sentence) in case No. ADSY/49C/2017 delivered on 20/5/19 is hereby affirmed.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

Salihu Adamu, Esq. For Appellant(s)

M.B. Rufai, Esq. Senior State Counsel II Adamawa State MOJ For Respondent(s)