KAZEEM AFOLABI v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/6865(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER A CHARGE READ AND EXPLAINED TO A GROUP JOINTLY ACCUSED OF AN OFFENCE WOULD VITIATE A CRIMINAL TRIAL
In the case of Udeh v State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 609)1 where a similar argument was put forward, the Supreme Court held that it would be absurd to suggest that a charge must be read out separately to each of several accused persons jointly charged together. It held that the reasonable view is that the requirement of the law is satisfied if the charge is read and explained to the group provided each pleads separately to the charge. Thus ‘block reading’ of charge to joint accused persons does not vitiate a criminal trial once it is clear that they understood the offence they are accused of committing and have pleaded to them separately. Kajubo v State (supra), Erekanure v State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 385; Kanu v. State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 583) 531. In the appeal before us, the charge was read and explained to the appellant and his co-defendants together but they pleaded separately to each count. The procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in the arraignment of the Appellant was correct and cannot be faulted. Issue one is resolved against the Appellant. Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
WHEN AN ALLEGED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IS CHALLENGED DURING TRIAL
Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2004 which is the law applicable at the time the offence was committed provides that: “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature.”
There is a long line of authorities in support of the view that the proper stage at which an accused person should challenge an alleged confessional statement during trial is when the statement is tendered in evidence by the prosecution. See Ikemson v State (1980) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110)455; Okaroh v State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 214; Alarape vs. The State [2001] 5 NWLR (Pt. 705) 79; Afolalu v The State (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1127) 161 @ 193; Oseni v. State (2012) LPELR – 7833(SC). Uweh v State (2012) LPELR – CA/C/40C/2008. The objection will then enable the court to conduct a trial within a trial to determine the voluntariness of the confession and its admissibility. Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW: CONDITIONS TO PROOF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
It is now firmly established that to secure a conviction for armed robbery, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the three essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery; to wit (1) that there was a robbery or series of robberies; (2) that each robbery was an armed robbery in the sense that the robber or robbers were armed with firearms or offensive weapons; and (3) that the accused/appellant took part in the robbery. See Bozim v. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465; Ani v State (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 145; Suberu v State (2010) LPELR – SC. 199/2009. Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
