DAUDA v. STATE (2021)

DAUDA v. STATE

(2021)LCN/15131(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, March 19, 2021

CA/IB/289C/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ISMAILA DAUDA APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

It is trite law that in criminal Prosecution, the required standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See – SECTION 135 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

WHEN IS AN ACCUSED SAID TO HAVE PROVED ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

The settled position of the law is that when the ingredients of any particular offence the accused is charged with has been proved, then the Prosecution is said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. See the following cases: – ABIRIFON VS THE STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 587.- SMART VS STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

WAYS BY WHICH THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED CAN BE PROVED

The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods: – (a) Through Confessional Statement. (b) Through Circumstantial Evidence or (c) Through the testimony of an eye witness or eye witnesses. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING

For the offence of kidnapping, the Prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt. (1) That the person was seized and forcefully taken away by the accused person. (2) That the victim was taken away against his/her consent. (3) That the victim was taken away without lawful excuse, See – BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40611 (SC) AT PAGES 15 -16 PARAGRAGHS E-A, (2016) 14 NWLR PART 1534 PAGE 126. The offence of kidnapping is complete when the victim is carried away against his wish. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

WHETHER A TRIAL COURT CAN RELY SOLELY ON A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CONVICTING HIM

It is trite law that a trial Court can rely solely on the Confessional Statement of an accused person to convict him. In AKPA VS STATE (2008) 14 NWLR PART 1106 PAGE 72 PARTICULARLY AT 100 TO 101 PARAGRAPHS H-A. It was held among others as follows: – “… a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a prisoner, if it is direct and positive and it is duly made and satisfactorily proved (as in the instant case leading to this appeal) it is sufficient to warrant conviction without any corroborative evidence so long as the Court is satisfied as to the truth of the confession…” A confession is an admission made by an accused person. See SECTION 27(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011. The duty of the Court is to decide the weight to be attached to it as what is admitted needs no further proof. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

WHEN IS A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL PROCEEDING REQUIRED

A trial within trial is required where the allegation is that the Confession was not voluntarily made, the effect is that the accused admits that he made the statement but that he did so as a result of force or inducement. See – OGUDO VS THE STATE (2011) 11-12 PART 1 SCM PAGE 209 AT 212; (2011) 18 NWLR PART 1278 PAGE 1. In LASISI VS STATE (2013) 3-4 SC PART 1 PAGE 58, it was held by the Supreme Court among others as follows: – “Once a Confessional Statement is admitted following a trial within trial proceedings it becomes very difficult for an Appellate Court to intervene on an appeal against its admissibility as the evaluation of the evidence adduced at the said trial is based on the credibility of witnesses, which duty is solely that of the trial Court as the Appellate Court is not privileged to have seen the witnesses testify nor watch their demeanor, etc…” The Supreme Court also held in the above Judgment as follows: – “… the procedure of trial within trial is not designed to determine whether an accused person made the statement but whether he made it voluntarily, in other words, an accused person must admit making the Confessional Statement before he could raise the circumstances in which the Confessional Statement was made by him.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BEFORE A COURT CAN ATTACH WEIGHT TO A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The trial Court in this case complied with the provision of the law as laid down when admitting Confessional Statement as in laid down in the case of – OSENI VS STATE (2012) 4 SCM PAGE 150 AT 153 PAGE 166 PARAGRAPHS B-E, (2012) 5 NWLR PART 1293 PAGE 351. It was held among others that the questions a Judge must ask himself on the weight to be attached to a Confessional Statement are as follows: – (1) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? (2) Is it corroborated? (3) Are relevant statements made in it of facts, true as far as they can be tested? (4) Was the accused person one who had the opportunity of committing the offence? (5) Is his confession possible? (6) Is it consistent with other facts which has been ascertained and have been proved?

CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS ESSENTIAL AND USEFUL

In ADEBAYO VS. STATE (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34, (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34, (2014) ALL FWLR PART 743 PAGE 1994. The Supreme Court held among others as follows: – “…it is settled law that an identification Parade is very essential and useful whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognize the suspect who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or accused person is in dispute. However, where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, there will be no need for an identification parade to further identify the offender…” Also in OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (2013) 1 SCM PAGE 170 AT 182, it was held amongst others by the Supreme Court thus: – “…An accused person who confesses to have committed the offence for which he is charged, an identification parade is clearly unnecessary. It would amount to a waste of time to go looking for the person who committed an offence which that person has come forward to say that he committed the offence…” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

MEANING, NATURE AND ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy has been defined in number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to ground a conviction. See the following cases: – – OSETOLA & 1 OTHER VS THE STATE (Supra). – UPAHAR VS THE STATE (Supra). – NGUMA VS A.G. IMO STATE (Supra). – KAYODE VS THE STATE (2016) 7 NWLR PART 1511 PAGE 199. – GARBA VS C.O.P (2007) 16 NWLR PART 1060 PAGE 378 AT 400. The ingredients of the offence of Conspiracy are: – (a) There must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or they must agree to do a lawful act by illegal means. (b) The main substance of the offence of Conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof. The offence of Conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned. See –IRIRI VS THE STATE (2018) LPELR – 45042 (CA). The offence of Conspiracy is complete once a concluded agreement exists between two or more people that share a common criminal purpose. It is immaterial that the persons had not met each other, and conspiracy can be inferred by what each person does or does not do in furtherance of conspiracy. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal emanated from the Judgment of Ogun State High Court of Justice, Waterside Judicial Division sitting at Ijebu-ode in Charge No: HCG/01C/2017 – THE STATE VS. ISMAILA DAUDA delivered on 11th day of June, 2019 wherein the Appellant was found guilty of the two-count charge and sentenced to 5 years in prison with hard labour on each count.

Briefly the facts of the case according to the Prosecution was that on the 11th day of March, 2013 at Onisun’s Palace Gate in Ilushin via Abigi, the PW1 Olori Adeola Adesanya while trying to drive into the Palace was double crossed by three men in a Gulf Car. The three men, armed with guns, forced PW1 out of her vehicle, put her in their car and drove away. The vehicle was driven by the Appellant, on the way, the Appellant called someone on the phone to inform the person that they had successfully kidnapped her i.e., PW1. While driving towards the J4 Express the Appellant and his gang members received information that the road ahead has been blocked.

They then diverted into the bush and started shooting sporadically but they later aborted

their mission and escaped into the bush, abandoning PW1 in the vehicle. The Appellant was later arrested based on Exhibits recovered from the abandoned Gulf car, while the others escaped.

Upon his arrest, the Appellant was identified by PW1 and he also made a Confessional Statement wherein he admitted the crime.
The Appellant was charged to Court. He was convicted and sentenced to 5years imprisonment for each of the two-count charge.
The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court appealed to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the Appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows: –
(1) “Whether the Learned Trial Judge rightly held that the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as enjoined by law and/or whether the doubts established in the case of the Prosecution ought to be resolved in favour of the Appellant. (Distilled from Grounds 1 & 2)
(2) Whether the failure of the Learned Trial Judge to call for further believable and corroborative evidence outside the retracted confessional statement and the

Court’s failure to observe and consider the defences and evidence of the Appellant amount to total denial of his right to fair hearing (Distilled from Ground 2).

In his own case, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated a sole issue for the determination of this Appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows: –
“Whether the Learned Trial Court was right in upholding that the Prosecution has proved the offence of kidnapping while relying on confessional statement of the Appellant in convicting him”.

At the hearing of this Appeal on 9th day of February, 2021 the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of High Court of Ogun State of Nigeria delivered on 11/6/2019.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on 5/7/2019 while the Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 31/7/2019.
The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 2/12/2019 and deemed properly filed on 3/6/2020.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on the said Brief as his Argument in urging that the Appeal be allowed.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand

referred to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 30/9/2020 and deemed properly filed on 9/2/2021.
She adopted and relied on the said Brief as his Argument in urging that the Appeal be dismissed.

I have gone through the issues formulated for the determination of the Appeal by Counsel for both parties and I am of the view that the sole issue formulated on behalf of the Respondent encompasses the two issues formulated for the determination of the Appeal on behalf of the Appellant. I will therefore rely on the said sole issue formulated for the determination of the Appeal on behalf of the Respondent.

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
“Whether the Learned Trial Court was right in upholding that the Prosecution has proved the offence of kidnapping while relying on the confessional statement of the Appellant in convicting him”.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that before any accused person can be convicted of any criminal offence, the Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of Sections 135 (1) and 139 of the Evidence Act. He relied on the following cases: –

– AYUB-KHAN VS. STATE (1990) 2 NWLR PART 172 PAGE 127 AT 133-134
– AKINFE VS. STATE (1998) 3 NWLR PART 85 PAGE 729.
– ARUNA VS. STATE (1990) 6 NWLR PART 155 AT 12
– AZEKWE VS. STATE (2014) 10 NWLR PART 1415 PAGE 353.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are: –
(i) There must be two or more persons.
(ii) They must form a common intention.
(iii) The common intention must be towards prosecuting an unlawful purpose.
(iv) An offence must be committed in the process.
(v) The offence must be of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence.
The case of: – AKINKUNMI VS.THE STATE (1987) 1 NWLR PART 52 PAGE 608. was relied upon.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that to establish the offence of kidnapping, the following must be proved-
(a) That the victim was seized and taken away by the accused person.
(b) That the victim was taken away against his consent.
(c) That the victim was taken away without lawful excuse.

The offence of kidnapping is complete when the victim is carried away

against his wish. The following cases were relied upon: -BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40611 (SC) AT PAGES 15-16 PARAGRAPHS E-A.
– IKEMSON VS STATE (1989) 3 NWLR PART 110 PAGE 455 AT 472.
– FAMUYIWA VS THE STATE (2017) LPELR – 43836 (SC) PAGE 31 PARAGRAPH E.

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that PW1 never identified the Appellant as one of the suspects. The case of: –
– BOZIN VS THE STATE (1985) 7 SC PAGE 450 AT 467-468 was relied upon.

It was argued that the learned trial Judge ought not to have believed the evidence of PW1.
The following cases were relied upon: –
– ONUOHA & 3 OTHERS VS THE STATE (1989) 2 SC PART II PAGE 115.
– NDIDI VS STATE (2007) ALL FWLR PART 381 PAGE 1617 AT 1640-1641.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that PW2 failed to link the Appellant to all the exhibits recovered from the scene of crime, the case of the PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE VS UMARU (2014) LPELR – 22466 (SC) was referred to.

The Appellant’s Confessional Statement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “G” after the trial within trial proceeding was

conducted. It was submitted that the evidence of PW2 did not corroborate the Confessional Statement i.e., Exhibit “G”.

It was also submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in Law when he failed to call for further corroborative evidence outside the Confessional Statement.
The cases of – SUNDAY ONUOHA & 3 OTHERS VS THE STATE (Supra).
– OGUDO VS STATE (2011) SC PART 1 PAGE 71 AT 75-76 were relied upon.

It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the evidence of PW1 cannot be used to corroborate the Confessional Statement of the Appellant.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged that the Judgment of the trial Court be set aside.

In her response to the submission by learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in a criminal trial, the Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. She relied on the case of – ABIRIFON VS STATE (2013) 9 SCM PAGE 1 AT 5.

On the offence of kidnap, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the evidence of PW1 Olori Adesanya Adeola who was kidnapped on

11/3/2013.

The evidence of PW2 and the Confessional Statement of the Appellant Exhibit “G” were referred to, where the Appellant gave a graphic description of how he and his accomplices conspired together to kidnap PW1.
She submitted that the Court can rely on the Confessional Statement of an accused person to convict him. She relied on the case of – AKPA VS STATE (2008) 8 SCM PAGE 68 AT 70.

It was submitted further that the trial Court complied with the provision of the law as laid down in the case of OSENI VS STATE (2012) 4 SCM PAGE 150 AT 153.
She argued that the Confessional Statement having been corroborated by the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2, has met the requirement of the law. She referred to the case of – ISMAIL VS STATE (2011) 10 SCM PAGE 35 AT 39 PARAGRAPH 4.

On the issue of identification parade, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that where there is good and cogent evidence against the Appellant i.e., accused to the crime on the day of the incident, a formal identification parade is not necessary. She referred to the cases of: – ADEBAYO VS THE STATE (2014) 8 SCM

PAGE 255 PARAGRAPHS C-G.
– ADEYEMI VS THE STATE (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34 AT 55 PARAGRAPHS E-H.

On the offence of Conspiracy, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that conspiracy is complete when two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act by an unlawful means, she relied on the following cases: – OSETOLA & 1 OTHER VS THE STATE (2012) 12 SCM PART 2 PAGE 347 AT 371.
– UPAHAR VS THE STATE (2003) 6 NWLR PAGE 230 AT 239.
– NGUMA VS AG. IMO STATE (2014) 3 SCM PAGE 137 AT 160-161.

She finally urged this Court not to disturb the decision of the trial Court and hold that the Prosecution has proved the offences of Conspiracy to commit kidnap and kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt.

RESOLUTION
It is trite law that in criminal Prosecution, the required standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See – SECTION 135 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011.
The settled position of the law is that when the ingredients of any particular offence the accused is charged with has been proved, then the Prosecution is said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. See the following cases: – ABIRIFON VS THE STATE (2013) 13 NWLR

PART 1372 PAGE 587.
– SMART VS STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447.

The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods: –
(a) Through Confessional Statement.
(b) Through Circumstantial Evidence or
(c) Through the testimony of an eye witness or eye witnesses.

The Appellant in this case was arraigned before the High Court of Ogun State on a two-count charge of Conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to and punishable under Section 516 and kidnapping contrary to Section 364(2) of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006.

For the offence of kidnapping, the Prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) That the person was seized and forcefully taken away by the accused person.
(2) That the victim was taken away against his/her consent.
(3) That the victim was taken away without lawful excuse,
See – BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40611 (SC) AT PAGES 15 -16 PARAGRAGHS E-A, (2016) 14 NWLR PART 1534 PAGE 126.
The offence of kidnapping is complete when the victim is carried away against his wish.

In order to prove the offence of kidnapping the PW1, Olori Adesanya Adeola testified thus: –
“…My names are Olori Adesanya Adeola, I live at Oba’s Palace, Ilusin, Ogun Waterside, Ogun State Nigeria, I am a teacher by profession, I know the accused person in this case, he is in Court right now, on the 11th day of March, 2013 I can recollect what happened, on that day, I was returning from School after close of school at 2.00p.m. I was inside my vehicle going home, I saw another vehicle coming behind me. I trafficated to the right to branch to the Palace, suddenly this vehicle just came to my right, I thought something happened to the vehicle, they blocked me, before I could say anything, three men came out of the vehicle with gun, each man holding a gun, the fourth person was the driver, the accused person, he was inside the vehicle, they opened the doors of vehicle and pushed me out, I was about to shout when they said:
“Madam, eyin ni a wagbe o, a fe gba owo ni owo Kabiyesi, ti a

bati gba, a fi yin si le” i.e. Madam we have come to kidnap you, we want to get money from Kabiyesi, we will release you as soon as we get the money. One of them said this. I replied that it will never happen like that as I was about to shout, they covered my mouth, so I could not shout to call the people in the Palace, we started struggling, in the course of the struggle, they tore my cloth and left me naked, as they succeeded in taking me inside their vehicle as soon as they succeeded, the accused person picked his phone and called someone saying we have succeeded in taking her, she co-operated with us.”
My vehicle was left there on the road, they gave me one spectacle to put on, I rejected it, I was looking at him through the inner mirror of the vehicle, the accused person told the others to beat me as I was looking at him in the mirror, they started beating me and put ground pepper on my face and asked to look down, I was placed in the middle in between two men at the back, they put their guns on my lap, the other man in the front faced me and pointed his gun at me, we were going, at this point, people were pursuing the vehicle, my people

from Ilusin, they carried two of our vehicle to pursue them, this same driver asked me to look back and use my phone to call them to stop pursuing them, or else they will waste my life and their own life also, I told them that I do not have any phone on me, about 200 meter to the express road, we saw another Avenses car coming from the express and facing us, one of them received a phone call and told the accused person that the road has been barricaded that they should enter into the bush, the accused person drove far far inside the thick forest about 200 meters away from the express road, I was already facing down inside the vehicle, they said take your things do not left anything inside the vehicle, started shooting sporadically and fled inside the bush, I did not know the way they went, two of our vehicles were damaged because they shot at them, they left me inside the vehicle and ran away, I was there inside the bush, my people could not come inside the bush to rescue because of the shooting, the vigilante people later came to rescue me with some bold men, after they left, people pushed the vehicle which they used on to the road, they searched the vehicle

and saw one “Buy me” note and one sim card inside the vehicle. They put the phone number of the accused person on the buy me note, many people were arrested. Through the sim card, it was those people that identified the number as “Buy me “note to be the accused number. When the accused persons was identified by the Police, they asked me if I could identify the culprits, I told them that I could only identify the driver, that I would identify him if I see him. When he was arrested, I was invited to the Police station, even before I identify the accused person identified me and said “that is the woman we want to kidnap that day and the women said that it would not be possible”. The accused person was taken to Ilusin, he was taken to School, I was with them all the time, he was taken to the spot where they hid themselves inside a place near the School where they would pretend that their car broke down.”

PW2: Akinade Balogun, Inspector of Police testified as follows:
“Witness sworn on the Holy Bible and states in English language. My names are Akinade Balogun. I am an Inspector of Police presently

attached to SCID (Anti-Robbery Section) Eleweran, Abeokuta, Ogun State. I know one Corporal Akiri Ifeanyi. He was a Police man then attached to Abigi Police Station. He is now late. I also know one Corporal Oyekanmi Oluwatosin, he was also a Police man now late, then attached to Area commander Office, Ijebu-Odu. On the 17th of June, 2013. I was on duty in my office at Eleweran, Abeokuta when a case of kidnapping was transferred from Area Commander’s office, Ijebu-Ode to my department for further investigation. The accused person was brought as a suspect along the case file, there was a Zain sim card, a woman’s torn clothes, dry ground pepper in a small container and one black-coloured glasses were transferred with the case file as Exhibits. There is also a photograph of Gulf 3 car parked at Abigi Police Station. The PW1 in this case was introduced to me as the complainant. I took possession of the case file and recorded the statement of PW1 freely. I re-arrested the accused person, charged and cautioned him and he volunteered his statement in Yoruba language. I read the charge to him in Yoruba language which he admitted and he signed as the maker

because the statement made by the accused person. (Sic) to Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo in Ondo State where he claimed that one of the suspects who is still at large by name Segun Owoade is a Student. The accused person gave me this information. We went with an official letter addressed to the Provost of the College. We were directed to the Administrative Department of the College, at the place, Segun Owotide’s file was brought out, but it was blank, nothing to trace here with. From the school, the accused person led us to Owotide’s house, we discovered that the room has been ransacked and left opened. I saw a Nigerian Voters card inside the room. It has the name Oluwasegun Owotide. I saw it on the table and picked it up and went back to my office, on getting to the office, we submitted our report, the accused person claimed not to know the house of Muyideen who is still a suspect at large till now. The accused person also claimed not to know the name of the 4th person with them inside the Gulf car as well as one Gbenga whom the accused person told me that Segun contacted on the phone after they escaped. He was the one who came to carry them

from the bush to an uncompleted building along Ijebu-Ode road. We could not go to the building because the accused person claimed that he took them to the building very late in the night and they left very early the following morning, so he could not locate the place, the guns used by the accused person and his people could not be recovered. He could not find them. Upon submission of the report on the case, the accused person was arraigned before the Magistrate Court of Ijebu-Ode. The case file was duplicated and forwarded to the DPP or legal advice. If I see the Zain Sim card, I can identify it. I can also identify the torn cloth of the Complainant, the container containing the dry pepper and the dark eye glasses. These are the items.
Counsel: We seek to tender the items as Exhibits.
Dr. Sofola: No objection.
Court: The Zain card is admitted as Exhibit B. The container containing dry pepper is admitted as Exhibit C, the dark eye glasses is admitted as Exhibit D.
Witness Continues: If I see the letter, we took to Adeyemi College of Education, I can identify it. This is it.
Counsel: We seek to tender the letter. The document was

stated to have been written to an institution. The one I am holding does not contain the stamp of the institution.
Adebayo: The signature and phone number of the person who received it are on the letter, any other objection will go to the weight to be attached to the document. I urge the Court to admit the letter sought to be tendered.
Court: The letter has a signature and date beside the Provost’s name and address. It is hereby admitted as Exhibit E.
Witness continues: I can identify the voter’s card if I see it. This is it.
Counsel: I seek to tender the voter’s card.
Mr. Sofola: I oppose on the ground that the witness in his testimony that the name he found on the card is Oluwasegun Owotide, the name on the voter’s card sought to be tendered is Oluwasegun Daniel.
Adebayo Esq.: This is what the witness said that he recovered from the house and this is what we are tendering. I urge the Court to admit the voter’s card.
Court: The evidence of the witness is “I saw a Nigerian Voter’s card inside the room, it has the name Oluwasegun Owotide. I saw it on the table and I picked it

up”. The voter’s card sought to be tendered has the name Oluwasegun Daniel, the case is quite different from the name which the witness said was written on the Voter’s card which he picked up from the table in the room of Oluwasegun Owotide. The document is hereby rejected and it is marked as rejected Exhibit AA.
Witness continues: I know Kanmi Oluwatosin, he is now late. He was the IPO at Igbeba Police Area Commander. The case file at Igbeba was transferred to me, some of the contents are (1) Contents of the case file page, extract from the crime diary, minute sheets, Statement of the complainant, report page and two suspects, those are the things I could remember. Report page means – it usually contains the report of the IPO, he submitted the report of all acts taken in the course of investigating a case assigned to him. If I see the page, I can identify it. This is it. What I have now i.e., documents given to him now is report page and the statement of the IPO which he made before me when he handed the case file.
Counsel: We seek to tender the two documents which are the report of late Kanmi Oluwatosin.

Sofola Esq: No objection.
Court: The documents are admitted as Exhibits F and F1 i.e F for the report page and F1 for the IPO’s statement.”

In this case, PW1 and PW2 whose evidence were set out above gave evidence that PW1 was kidnapped. PW1 gave a vivid account of how she was attacked by a gang of armed men on 11/3/2013.

The PW1 stated how she was forced into a Gulf car and driven away by the Appellant. She was abandoned in the car inside the bush while the Appellant and his accomplices escaped into the bush.
The testimonies of PW1, PW2 and the Confessional Statement of the Appellant i.e., Exhibit “G” showed that the Appellant and his accomplices carried away PW1 Olori Adesanya Adeola against her wish. See – OKASHETU VS STATE (Supra).

In Exhibit “G” the Appellant gave a graphic description of how he and his accomplices conspired together to kidnap PW1. He stated how they drove to the palace and waited until PW1 showed up, there and then they forced her into their vehicle with gun pointed at her.

The Confessional Statement Exhibit “G” stated how they drove off with PW1 and had to

branch off the road because they received information that the J4 road was blocked. And they ended up abandoning PW1 in the vehicle when they had to make their escape while shooting sporadically.

There is no doubt that PW1 was kidnapped by the Appellant. The evidence of PW1 as to how she was kidnapped, assaulted and maltreated was not discredited, contradicted or controverted by the Appellant by way of cross examination.

confession…”

A confession is an admission made by an accused person. See SECTION 27(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011. The duty of the Court is to decide the weight to be attached to it as what is admitted needs no further proof.

During trial before the trial Court, the Appellant raised objection of involuntariness to the admissibility of Exhibit “G” which was the Statement of the Appellant. As a result, a trial within trial was conducted and the statement was subsequently admitted in evidence.
A trial within trial is required where the allegation is that the Confession was not voluntarily made, the effect is that the accused admits that he made the statement but that he did so as a result of force or inducement. See – OGUDO VS THE STATE (2011) 11-12 PART 1 SCM PAGE 209 AT 212; (2011) 18 NWLR PART 1278 PAGE 1.
In LASISI VS STATE (2013) 3-4 SC PART 1 PAGE 58, it was held by the Supreme Court among others as follows: –
“Once a Confessional Statement is admitted following a trial within trial proceedings it

becomes very difficult for an Appellate Court to intervene on an appeal against its admissibility as the evaluation of the evidence adduced at the said trial is based on the credibility of witnesses, which duty is solely that of the trial Court as the Appellate Court is not privileged to have seen the witnesses testify nor watch their demeanor, etc…”
The Supreme Court also held in the above Judgment as follows: –
“… the procedure of trial within trial is not designed to determine whether an accused person made the statement but whether he made it voluntarily, in other words, an accused person must admit making the Confessional Statement before he could raise the circumstances in which the Confessional Statement was made by him.”
The trial Court in this case complied with the provision of the law as laid down when admitting Confessional Statement as in laid down in the case of – OSENI VS STATE (2012) 4 SCM PAGE 150 AT 153 PAGE 166 PARAGRAPHS B-E, (2012) 5 NWLR PART 1293 PAGE 351. It was held among others that the questions a Judge must ask himself on the weight to be attached to a

Confessional Statement are as follows: –
(1) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
(2) Is it corroborated?
(3) Are relevant statements made in it of facts, true as far as they can be tested?
(4) Was the accused person one who had the opportunity of committing the offence?
(5) Is his confession possible?
(6) Is it consistent with other facts which has been ascertained and have been proved?
In view of the foregoing, having regard to the nature of evidence given during the trial within trial which this Court as an Appellate Court is not privy to, the learned trial Judge is therefore right to have admitted the confessional statement as Exhibit “G”. See also JIMOH VS. THE STATE (2014) 11 SCM PAGE 216.

A perusal of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 earlier set out in this Judgment, vis-à-vis the decision of the Supreme Court in Oseni Vs. State (supra) would reveal that the Confessional Statement of the Appellant Exhibit “G” was corroborated by the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses.

The Appellant can therefore be convicted upon Exhibit “G” i.e., the

Confessional Statement. See – ISMAIL VS. STATE (2011) 10 SCM PAGE 35 AT 39 (2011) 17 NWLR PART 1277 PAGE 601.

On the issue of identification, the Appellant made a Confessional Statement Exhibit “G” placing himself at the scene of crime. He was also recognized by PW1.
In ADEBAYO VS. STATE (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34, (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34, (2014) ALL FWLR PART 743 PAGE 1994. The Supreme Court held among others as follows: –
“…it is settled law that an identification Parade is very essential and useful whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognize the suspect who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or accused person is in dispute.
However, where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, there will be no need for an identification parade to further identify the offender…”
Also in OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (2013) 1 SCM PAGE 170 AT 182, it was held amongst others by the Supreme Court thus: –

<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>

“…An accused person who confesses to have committed the offence for which he is charged, an identification parade is clearly unnecessary. It would amount to a waste of time to go looking for the person who committed an offence which that person has come forward to say that he committed the offence…”
The Appellant identified himself by Exhibit “G” i.e the Confessional Statement. He gave graphic details of his involvement in the crime and promised not to commit crime again. The said Confessional Statement was corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which fixed the Appellant at the scene of crime.
In this appeal since the Appellant has identified himself as the person who kidnapped the PW1 through Exhibit “G”. There is no need for identification parade. He admitted committing the offence for which he was charged. There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession, this is because no human being will say anything negative about himself all things being equal.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The case of kidnapping against the Appellant has therefore been proved at the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt. See – ADEYEMI VS THE STATE (Supra) .
– NKEBISI & ANOTHER VS THE STATE (2010) 3 SCM PAGE 170 AT 174.

The Appellant was also charged and convicted at the trial Court for the offence of conspiracy to kidnap.

which is hardly capable of direct proof.

The offence of Conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned.
See –IRIRI VS THE STATE (2018) LPELR – 45042 (CA).
The offence of Conspiracy is complete once a concluded agreement exists between two or more people that share a common criminal purpose. It is immaterial that the persons had not met each other, and conspiracy can be inferred by what each person does or does not do in furtherance of conspiracy.

A careful reading of Exhibit “G” i.e., the Confessional Statement of the Appellant would reveal that there was a meeting of the minds of the Appellant and his other gang members still at large. The PW1 in her testimony also stated that the Appellant acted with some people when she was kidnapped.
See the following cases: –
– TAIWO OLADEJO VS THE STATE (2018) 11 NWLR PART 1630 PAGE 238.
– BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) 8 NWLR PART 1634 PAGE 1.
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS THE STATE (1973) 5 S.C. PAGE 17.
– KOLAWOLE VS STATE (2015) 8 NWLR PART 1460 PAGE 134.
– MUSA VS STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 PAGE 307.

Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that the Prosecution proved the offences of Conspiracy to kidnap and Kidnapping against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the Appellant too having confessed to same in his statement. i.e., Exhibit “G”.

In the result this sole issue for the determination of the appeal is hereby resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
This appeal therefore lacks merit and it is dismissed.

The Judgment of the trial Court in charge No – HCG/01C/2017: THE STATE VS ISMAILA DAUDA delivered on the 11th day of June, 2019 is hereby affirmed.
Appeal Dismissed.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read in draft, the leading judgment of my learned brother, JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A., which has just been delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is bereft of merit.

More often than not, the bone of contention in criminal trials is not whether the offence was committed, but whether the evidence established that the accused person in the dock is the offender: NDIDI vs. STATE (2007) 13 NWLR

(PT 1052) 633 at 651.

Therefore, in order to accentuate my concurrence, I wish to say a few words on whether the Appellant was adequately identified by the evidence adduced as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged, such that the prosecution can be held to have discharged the burden of proving the offence(s) charged beyond reasonable doubt.

The Appellant contended that the evidence adduced did not establish his identity as one of the persons who kidnapped the PW1. It is no doubt trite law as held in NDIDI vs. STATE (supra) at 651-652 per Aderemi, J.S.C. that:
“whenever the case of an accused person depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification of the accused or defendant which defence alleges to be mistaken, a trial Judge must warn himself of the special regard for caution and should weigh such evidence with others adduced by the prosecution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification.”

It is however imperative to state that the case against the Appellant was not dependent wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification of the Appellant by the

PW1. Howbeit, I iterate that not only did the PW 1 give a’ graphic account of the incident and how she took a good look at the Appellant from the rear-view mirror of the car, the Appellant in his confessional statement, Exhibit G, confessed to the commission of the offences charged. In THE STATE vs. OLASHEHU SALAWU (2011) LPELR (8252) 1 at 49 — 50, Adekeye, J.S.C. stated inter alia thus:
“Where there is good and cogent evidence linking the accused person to the crime on the day of the incident a formal identification may be unnecessary. Furthermore, where an accused person by his confession identified himself, there would be no need for any further identification parade. Identification is the means of establishing whether a person charged with an offence is the same person who committed the offence.
…Identification parade is not the only way of establishing the identification of an accused person in relation to the offence charged. Where the witness has ample opportunity to identify the accused a parade is not necessary. Recognition of an accused may be more reliable that identification.”
See also ATTAH vs. THE STATE (2010) 10

NWLR (PT 1201) 190 at 225-226, OSUAGWU vs. THE STATE (2013) 1 SCM 170 at 182 and ADEBAYO vs. THE STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT 743) 1994.

Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was one of those who kidnapped the PW1 and the lower Court was right to have convicted on the evidence.

It is for the foregoing reason and the more elaborate reasoning and conclusion adroitly marshalled in the leading judgment that I equally join in dismissing the appeal for being devoid of merit. The decision of High Court of Ogun State in CHARGE NO. HCG/01C/2017: THE STATE vs. ISMAILA DAUDA delivered on 11th day of June 2019 is hereby affirmed.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein.

In the instant appeal, the Appellant made a statement to the police which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit G after its voluntariness was tested in a trial within trial. Exhibit G is direct, positive and unequivocal

as it provides a vivid account of the kidnap of the nominal complainant (PW1).

The law is trite that a confessional statement, which is direct, positive and unequivocal is the best evidence in our criminal procedure. It is a statement of admission of guilt by the accused and the Court must admit it in evidence, unless it is contested at the trial. Once a confessional statement is admitted, the prosecution need not prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt as the confessional statement ends the need to prove the guilt of the accused. After all, there cannot be a more appropriate person to give evidence of the guilt of the accused more than the accused himself. Therefore, if an accused person says that he committed the offence and the Court comes to the conclusion that he made the statement in a stable mind and not under duress, he must be convicted. See SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 937)460; FABIYI VS. STATE (2015) 18 NWLR (PT. 1490) 80; KAYODE VS. STATE (2016) 7 NWLR (PT 1511) 199. IN STATE VS. AHMED (2020) 14 NWLR (PT. 1743) 1 @ 24-25. PARAS H-A the Supreme Court, per Abba-Aji, J.S.C. held as follows:

“It is settled law that an accused person can be convicted on his confessional statement. If a Court of comes to the conclusion that a statement made by an accused person satisfies all the legal requirements of a confessional statement, then the charge against the accused must of necessity have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The reason is simply that the Court can and does convict an accused person solely on his confessional statement. See per Abba Aji, J.S.C., in Tope v. State (2019) LPELR-47837(SC), (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 289 in reference per Onnoghen, J.S.C. in Fatai v. State(2013) LPELR-20182(SC), (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1361) 1.”

For this reason and the more comprehensive reasons contained in the lead judgment, I entirely agree that this appeal lacks merit and it is also dismissed by me.

Appearances:

O. A. ALAO, with him, MR. O. D. SHYLON and MR. S. B. OLARINDE For Appellant(s)

MISS O. A. SONOIKI Chief State Counsel Ministry of Justice, Ogun State with her MRS. A. O. AKAPO For Respondent(s)