NAWERI GBEBOMINI v. THE STATE
(2018)LCN/12248(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 6th day of December, 2018
CA/AK/194C/2014
RATIO
EVIDENCE: VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“The confessional statement of the appellant was admitted in evidence after a trial-within-trial was conducted by the prosecution. To me this settles the issue of the voluntariness or otherwise of the said statement. In other words the law has been satisfied by the conduct of the trial-within-trial. There is nothing in the Evidence Act that stipulates that the trial judge must believe the evidence of the appellant that he was either tortured or coerced into signing the document. The learned trial judge heard and watched the witnesses” PER PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
NAWERI GBEBOMINI Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice A. O ODUSOLA of the Ondo State High Court of justice, Akure delivered on the 26th day of March, 2014, wherein the appellant was charged and tried on an eight count charge of Procuring or Counselling another for the purpose of kidnapping contrary to Section 11 of the Anti-kidnapping and Abduction Law of Ondo State 2010 and for Kidnapping contrary to Section 3(ii)(b) of Anti kidnapping and Anti Abduction Laws of Ondo State, 2010 and Conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Law Cap.37, Vol 1 Laws of Ondo State, 2006.
The briefs of this case was that on the 16th day of November, 2011, the appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Ondo State in respect of an incident of kidnapping that occurred on the 15th of October 2010 at Sabomi in Ese-Odo Local Government involving one Mrs Opeleye Esther Wewe and her granddaughter, Rachael Lawrence and another one which occurred on the 27th day of June, 2011 at one community in Ilaje Local Government involving one Mrs Oriase Akinmehin. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the 8 count charge. The prosecution called four witnesses in proof of its case. The appellant gave evidence on his own behalf and called no other witness.
At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial judge in its judgment found the appellant guilty, only on count 1 of the eight count charge, i.e. providing information for the purpose of kidnapping Mrs Opeleye Esther Wewe and Rachael Lawrence and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without an option of fine.
Dissatisfied with this conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the appellant filed a notice of appeal dated the 13th day of April, 2014. By an order sought and granted from this Court, the appellant filed an amended Notice of Appeal dated the 12th day of December, 2017, filed on 14th day of December, 2017 but deemed properly filed on the 16th day of January, 2018. It consists of three grounds of appeal as follows:
1) The Honourable trial Court erred in law in convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life for kidnapping when the evidence led by the prosecution was solely based on the alleged confession of the appellant.
PARTICULARS
1. The testimony of the appellant in his defence and whether the alleged confession is possible was not considered by the trial Court in the circumstances of the case.
2. The trial Court is duty bound to warn itself of the conviction without testing the truth of the confession vis-a-vis evidence outside the confession.
3. The conviction of the accused was based on evidence that required corroboration but was not corroborated.
4. The trial Court would have arrived at a different finding if it had applied the test to determine the weight or truth of the alleged confession.
5. Conviction of the appellant in the absence of the test required of a confessional statement occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.
2) The Honourable Court erred in law when it held that the Charge against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt when the evidence adduced before the Court was not evaluated by the trial Court.
PARTICULARS
1. There was no evaluation of evidence by the trial Court.
2. The evidence of the appellant was not considered by the Court
3. The Court ought to have given a probative value to the alleged confessional statement in conjunction with the testimony of the appellant based on the allegation of the use of force.
4. The Court did not take into consideration the contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
3) The learned trial judge erred in law when he admitted in evidence Exhibits A-B despite proof that same was obtained from the appellants through the use of force and thus involuntary.
PARTICULARS
1. The appellant gave vivid details of how his statement was taken involuntarily at the Ondo State Command of the DSS office.
2. The trial Court did not take into consideration the effect of the presence of several security operatives including ex militants in the room while the appellant gave his alleged statement.
3. The judge did not take into consideration the innocence of the accused but unwaveringly believed the evidence of the prosecution despite its shortcomings.
In support of his appeal the appellant filed his brief of argument on the 14th day of December, 2017, which was deemed properly filed on the 16th January, 2018.
In arguing this appeal, MR. EMEKA OBEGOLU of counsel for the appellant adopted the said appellant’s brief as his legal arguments in support of the appeal. In it, Counsel formulated two issues for the determination of the Court:
I. Whether the trial judge was right to have held that the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt without evaluating all the evidence before him
II. Whether the learned trial judge erred when it admitted into evidence the confessional statement of the appellant despite the evidence before the Court that same was obtained involuntarily.
In arguing issue one, learned counsel submitted that the law is trite that an accused person must be accorded all the rights of an accused until he is proven guilty. He referred this Court to Section 36(4) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
He further submitted that the truth of a confessional statement should be examined in the light of other evidence. He placed reliance on the case of OGEDENGBE V STATE (2014) 12 NWLR PT 1421, 338 AT 371. Learned counsel contended that the principles in the authority of IBRAHIM V STATE (2014)3 NWLR PT 1394, 305 cannot apply in the instant case as the prosecution failed to establish any circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
On corroboration, counsel referred this Court to the cases of NGUMA V A.G IMO STATE (2014) 7 NWLR PT 1405, 119 AT 158 PARA E and ADELEYE V STATE (2015) 3 NWLR PT 1446, 229 AT 249 PARA H to submit that corroborative evidence is that evidence which tends to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated. Counsel canvassed that PW1 made no reference to the accused; neither did he identify the accused. PW3 testified that she did not know the accused as she was kidnapped on 27th June 2011. He referred this Court to page 65 of the printed records. She, (PW3) also did not link the appellant to the crime. PW2 testified that he came to know the accused person on the 30/6/2010. Counsel referred this Court to page 38 of the printed records. He contended that the alleged crime took place in 2011 and that the accused was arrested by the community and was later moved from Ilaje and transferred to Delta State. That under cross examination however, PW2 stated:
“I don’t not know where exactly the accused was arrested?. Counsel referred this Court to page 59 of the printed records. Learned counsel relied on the case of ALO V STATE (2015)9 NWLR PT.1464, 272 -273 to submit that the law is trite that contradictory evidence as given in the instant case cannot be used against the accused and urged this Court to so hold. He referred this Court to the case of STATE V SALAWU (2011)18 NWLR PT 1279, 580. Learned counsel contended that the accused was exercising his freedom of speech and expression as provided in Sections 39(1) and 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended respectively, at the bar when his right was grossly violated by PW4. Counsel further submitted that PW4 said that the accused told the police that his friend did not know anything about the kidnapping but under cross examination, he said that, I do not know what the accused told the police at Igbokoda.”
Counsel referred this Court to page 68 of the printed records. Learned counsel further submitted that speculation and suspicion no matter how strong cannot ground conviction. He referred this Court to the case of STATE V AJAYI (2016) 14 NWLR PT 1532, 227 PARAS E-G. Counsel relied on the case of EKPOISONG V STATE (2009) 1 NWLR PT 1122 AT 359 to submit that there is a substantial mix up or contradiction which makes it unsafe to convict on the evidence of the prosecution, the accused must be acquitted. He finally submitted that the law is settled that where there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, such doubt must be resolved in his favour. He placed reliance on the case of AIKHADUEKI V STATE (2014) 15 NWLR PT 1431, 530 and urged this honourable Court to resolve issue one in favour of the appellant.
On issue two, learned counsel relied on Section 29(2) & (5) of the Evidence Act 2011 to submit that oppression which is the underlying factor for involuntariness does not include just torture. He placed reliance on the case of BUA V DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR PT 838,657. He further submitted that the appellant gave a clear description of how he was tortured by the SSS officers at Delta State and overheard the ex-militant leader Mr. B.BOPIRE AJUBE telling SSS to attach the case of the kidnap of Mr Tola Wewe’s mother to him. Counsel referred this Court to page 51 of the printed records. Learned counsel further submitted that the apex Court in OWHORUKE V COP (2015) 15 NWLR PT 1483, 557 AT 576 PARAS A-C stated that,
“It must be noted that most crimes are committed by people with little or no education and who are easily led along by the IPO to write incriminating statements, that confessional statements are most times beaten out of suspects and the Court usually admits such statements, that as a strong recommendation, a confessional statement should be taken from suspects only in the presence of their counsel or a legal practitioner for such a statement to be admissible”.
Counsel urged this Court to uphold this submission and resolve issue two in favour of the appellant. Mr Obegolu finally urged the Court to uphold the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.
The respondent’s brief of argument dated and filed on the 8th day of October, 2018 but deemed properly filed on the 22nd day of October, 2018, was settled by MR. B.A ADEROSIN of counsel to the respondent. Counsel formulated two issues for the determination of the Court:
i. Whether, having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved that the appellant procured, counselled or gave information for the purpose of kidnapping?
ii. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the trial Court was right in admitting and relying on the confessional statement of the appellant?
Arguing one, learned Counsel relied on the case of AKINRINLOLA V STATE (2016) 10 NWLR PT 1537, 73 AT 98- 99 to submit that the learned trial judge was perfectly right in holding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant procured, counselled another or gave information for the purposes of kidnapping. That the prosecution can discharge this onus on them through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence or confessional statement of the accused person. He referred this Court to the case of OKASHETU V STATE (2016) 15 NWLR PT 1534, 126 AT 147. Counsel contended that the payment of N5 million as ransom was neither controverted nor challenged under cross examination. Counsel referred this Court to page 36-38 of the printed records.
Counsel further contended that Exhibit A1 (confessional statement made at SSS Delta) and Exhibit B (confessional statement made at Akure office of SSS) were properly admitted after the conduct of a trial-within-trial and that both provide compelling evidence that the appellant participated in the crime alleged. He referred this Court to the case of OLANIPEKUN V STATE (2016)13 NWLR PT 1528,100 AT 125. Counsel submitted that a confessional statement does not need corroboration if it is believed by the trial Court, noting that the Court took its time to demonstrate beyond per adventure it’s satisfaction of the truth of Exhibit B. Counsel referred this Court to page 103-104 of the printed records and the case of ABDULKABIR V. STATE (2015) ALL FWLR PT 797, 649 AT 657.
He relied also on the cases of OGEDENGBE V STATE (2014) 12 NWLR PT 1421, 338 AT 386; ADAMU SALIU V STATE (2014) ALL FWLR PT 743, 2051 AT 2069 PARAS D to submit that the voluntary confessional statement of an accused person provides the best evidence to support his conviction. Counsel referred this Court to page 53 of the printed records to further submit that the appellant informed the Court that he was not tortured or beaten when he made the statement at Akure.
On the contradiction in the evidence of PW2, counsel relied on the case of ODUNLAMI V NIGERIA NAVY (2014) ALL FWLR PT 720, 1205 AT 1227, PARAS F-H to submit that the highlighted discrepancies or minor mix up are natural when witnesses are not tutored or teleguided. Counsel contended that the contradictions are not material and that for it to be material, it must relate to the ingredients of the offence charged. He placed reliance on the cases of IGABELE V STATE (2006) 6 NWLR PT 975, 100 AT 120; EMEKA V STATE (2014) ALL FWLR PT 751, 1480 AT 1492.
On the type of security agents that rescued PW3, counsel submitted that PW3 may not even know the difference between Police and SSS and that the fuss about the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are unnecessary.
On the amount paid as ransom, counsel contended that the amount was not a subject of controversy as PW1 stated that N150, 000, 000 was demanded but they later paid N5, 000,000. Counsel urged this honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent.
Arguing on issue two, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial judge was right in relying and admitting the confessional statement of the appellant, Exhibit B. He further submitted that the statement passed the veracity test before it was acted upon. He placed reliance on the case of EDOKUN V STATE (2017) ALL FWLR PT 875, 2125 AT 2156. Counsel contended that the objection to the admissibility of a statement must be raised at the point of tendering, not later when the defendant is giving evidence. He referred this Court to the cases of PATRICK IKEMSON V STATE (1989) 3 NWLR PT 110, 455; OBINAH JOHN V STATE (2013) LPELR 22197.
On whether oppression is not limited to torture, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the beating relied on by the appellant in his evidence in chief relates to the statement he made at Asaba and not to Exhibit B made at Akure.
That the appellant’s allegation that he was made to copy the statement he made at Sapele cannot hold water as he made a statement in Akure on the 1/07/2011 while the statement he made at Sapele was not received until 23/09/2011, noting that the appellant testified that he was not beaten when making his statement at Akure, i.e. Exhibit B. Learned counsel referred this Court to the authority in OGEDENGBE V STATE (SUPRA) to submit further that the appellate Court which does not have the opportunity of seeing and observing the witnesses cannot interfere with the trial Court’s findings and wholly adopted their argument in respect of issue one and urged this Court to dismiss this appeal.
The two issues raised by the appellants for determination in this appeal are the same in material particulars with the two issues raised by the respondent. I will therefore determine this appeal on the appellant?s issues as raised.
Issue one, as raised by the appellant is:
“Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that the Prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt without evaluating all the evidence before him”.
I have considered very soberly the submissions of learned counsel to the appellant on this issue. I am at a loss frankly speaking as to what really is the arguement of counsel on this issue. For instance and if I may ask, what is the purport of fair hearing brought under this issue? This appeal was prosecuted on the appellant’s amended Notice of Appeal filed in this Court on the 14/12/2017 and deemed on the 16/01/2018. It contains three ground of appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the three grounds as follows:
GROUNDS
1. THE HONOURABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN LAW IN CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE APPELANT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE FOR KIDNAPPING WHEN THE EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION WAS SOLELY BASED ON THE ALLEGED CONFESSION OF THE APPELLANT.
2. THE HONOURABLE COURT ERRED IN LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST THE APPELLANT WAS PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE COURT WAS NOT EVALUATED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
3. THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN LAW WHEN HE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE EXHIBITS A-B DESPITE PROOF THAT SAME WAS OBTAINED FROM THE APPELLANTS THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE AND THUS INVOLUNTARY.
With all due respect to the learned counsel, there is no ground of appeal that alleges breach of fair hearing. There is also no issue raised on fair hearing. It is settled law that any issue that does not arise from the grounds of appeal is incompetent. And conversely any ground of appeal not captured in the issues raised is deemed abandoned. Flowing from this therefore, I hold that the submission of counsel in his brief of argument particularly page 6, para 4.2 to page 7, para 4.3 are incompetent and same are accordingly discountenanced.
The learned Counsel to the appellant has set out very aptly the law on confessional statements at pages 7 & 8, paras 4.4 to 4.5 of his brief of argument when he referred to the cases of OGEDENGBE V STATE (SUPRA) and SALIU V STATE (SUPRA). This in summary, is that the Court can base a conviction solely on a confessional statement but it is desirable to look outside the confession for some independent evidence no matter how slight to show that the confessional statement is true. This indeed is the current law on confessional statements. In the case of KAZEEM TASLIM V THE STATE (2015) LPELR-24658, this Court held that:
“it is trite law that the confessional statement of an accused person is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a criminal charge. Thus a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused, if satisfactorily proved is sufficient to warrant a conviction with or without corroboration as long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of the confession. It is however desirable to have evidence (outside the said confession) to make it probable that the confession is true”.
In the Supreme Court case of MOHAMMED V THE STATE (2007) 11 NWLR,PT 1045, 303 AT 320-320, it was held per Niki Tobi, JSC(as he then was) that:
“Where an accused person confessed to a crime in the absence of an eye witness of killing, he can be convicted on his confession alone, if the confession is positive, direct and properly proved.”
The confessional statements of the appellant in issue in this appeal are Exhibits A and B. Like the trial Court, I will quote only the relevant portions of Exhibits A and B:
Exhibit A:
“I know this (sic) guys when I was in Obubraku near Koko in Warri, Warri North Local Government Area for bunkering activities. That is where they asked me to show them Honourable Tola Wewe mother was living and I do.
After everything, they gave one hundred thousand Naira (N100, 000.00) that was last year 2010”.
Exhibit B:
“This people approached me because I know who and who to kidnap. I join this kidnapping business because there is no enough to finance myself in education. During the Hon. Tola Wewe mother’s kidnap, I was in Obubraki Warri North Local Government Area, Delta State, that is where they called me to come for my share of money. I was given one hundred thousand Naira(N100,000.00) during the kidnap of Tola Wewe’s Mother”.
The appellant was only convicted for aiding and abetting kidnapping of Tola Wewe’s mother. That is the first head of the charge or the first count. The Court discharged and acquitted the appellant, nobly I would say on the other seven counts that he was charged with. To my mind the quoted portions of Exhibits A and B alone amount to a clear admission that the appellant aided the kidnapping of the said Tola Wewe’s mother. This confession is direct, positive and properly proved. I hold that it is evidence upon which the trial Court properly convicted him.
I find that the evidence of PW4 at page 67 lines 6-7 of the printed records show that, even if the appellant was not involved in the actual kidnapping, he definitely was in some alliance with them which supports or corroborated the evidence of aiding and abetting kidnapping. This to me is a logical inference from the said testimony, referring to the appellant:
“but told us that he was going to MAKE A SIGNAL TO SAPELE THAT WE ARE COMING WITH A SUSPECT”
This piece of direct evidence, no matter how slight not only corroborates Exhibits A and B but satisfies the requirement of the law to get independent evidence outside the confession to show that the confession was probable. The testimony of PW1 is also relevant and corroborative. Exhibit A referred to PW1 as honourable. His evidence confirmed that at the relevant time, he was commissioner for culture and tourism. The year he stated the offence was committed, 2010 confirmed the year of the offence in Exhibit A. Finally PW1 testified that they paid a ransom of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) before his mother and niece were released.
This confirms Exhibits A and B that the appellant was given One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100, 000. 00) as his share of the ransom money. I hold therefore that there was enough corroborative evidence which showed beyond doubt that the appellant aided some kidnappers in the kidnapping of Mrs Esther Wewe and her granddaughter, mother and niece of PW1. I hold therefore that the learned trial judge properly convicted the appellant on count (1) as charged. This issue is therefore resolved against the appellant.
Issue two is:
“whether the learned trial judge erred when it admitted into evidence the confessional statement of the appellant despite the evidence before the Court that same was obtained involuntarily”.
The confessional statement of the appellant was admitted in evidence after a trial-within-trial was conducted by the prosecution. To me this settles the issue of the voluntariness or otherwise of the said statement. In other words the law has been satisfied by the conduct of the trial-within-trial. There is nothing in the Evidence Act that stipulates that the trial judge must believe the evidence of the appellant that he was either tortured or coerced into signing the document. The learned trial judge heard and watched the witnesses.
He is in the best position to make findings of fact. The law is that I cannot substitute my views for his own. This is especially so as there was no appeal against the ruling admitting the statements in evidence. It is only then that this Court can intervene to evaluate the ruling to determine whether it was perverse or not. In the circumstances, this issue having been determined and overtaken by events is not a live issue in this appeal. A trial-within-trial was conducted by the trial judge who was satisfied from the mini trial that the statements were made voluntarily and therefore admissible. Section 29(2) and (5) of the Evidence Act 2011 have being complied with by the ruling of the trial Court quoted by learned counsel at page 13, para 4.20 of his brief of arguement.
For emphasis, I quote same:
“In light of the above, there is nothing before the Court to show that the statement of the accused person was not obtained voluntarily. Therefore the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof that the statement of the accused was obtained voluntarily”.
Like, I pointed out earlier in this judgement, this is the decision of the trial Court on Exhibits A and B. It is a subsisting decision. There was no appeal against it then, nor is there a ground of appeal against it even now. It is trite that a decision of a Court not set aside on appeal subsists and binds. I so find. This means that issue two is resolved against the appellant. I am not unaware of the opinion of Rhodes Vivour, JSC in the case of OWHORUKE V C.O.P (2015) 15 NWLR, PT 1483, 557 AT 576, PARAS A-C on how confessional statements are often obtained by the police through beating and torturing the suspects. Clearly even the wordings in the referred passage: ‘it is seriously recommended’ supports the view that the opinion is only obiter and not ratio decidendi. Be that as it may, the issue is one of great concern and it is very topical.
Trial Courts routinely conduct trial-within-trial almost as a matter of course. I don’t know of any but I am sure there are some instances regrettably few no doubt, where trial Courts have ruled after a trial-within-trial that the statement is involuntary. This is not the fault of the trial Courts. More often than not, the suspects have no evidence of this alleged torture. The prosecution is to prove before reasonable doubt that there was no torture or inducement. They do this by calling the IPO and the superior police officer who endorses the confessional statement where this is the case. The suspects are not in a position, in the cell of the security agencies to provide any evidence of their allegations, many of which may undoubtedly be genuine. The trial Courts in such circumstances are handicapped and have to disbelieve an allegation thrown up without proof.
While the debate should go on, from my long experience as a trial judge, I find with utmost respect that the recommendation of Rhodes Vivour, JSC is fraught with challenges. A good number of trial lawyers with apologies to the vast majority who are not in this category of ‘charge and bail’ constitute a stumbling block to the proper and effective administration of criminal justice in this country. If suspects are allowed to make statements only in the presence of their lawyers, (which may happen to fall into this category especially low profile suspects who are most often the victims of this process) those cases that depend on their proof by only confessional statements will become extinct. Let?s not forget that there are some suspects, who upon committing a crime will be pricked by their conscience and they will voluntarily confess to lift the burden off their chest.
I would like to suggest that only video recordings of statements should be admissible. That way, if there is any torture or inducement, it will be apparent. Maybe with the video viewed (while being recorded) concurrently either in the office of the Attorney-General or in a designated Court. In view of speed at which technology is growing and the possibility of manipulation inherent therein this may present untold challenges in its implementation. It may also appear far-fetched or even too expensive. But the administration of criminal justice is an expensive venture. Unless and until the Government adequately invests in it, the security challenges will remain with us for a long time to come. The debate should continue until we reach an agreeable, workable and effective process.
On the whole and from my findings in this judgement, I hold that this appeal fails and I accordingly dismiss it. The decision of the trial Court delivered on the 26th day of March, 2014 is hereby affirmed.
I cannot end this judgement without commending Hon. Justice A.O Odusola, the learned trial judge on the wisdom and industry he put into this judgement. I must single out the highly commendable way he evaluated the evidence on all the counts and rightly dismissed seven of the eight count charge. I also share his sentiments on the sentence which he rightly observed is a strict liability offence and he has no discretion to exercise. I am of the school of thought that punishment should as much as possible be commensurate with the offence.
However with the way kidnapping has become a big menace in the country, with the low and mighty falling victims and with the way it is becoming an attraction of becoming billionaires a la aka Evans, the kidnapper, it is no wonder some governments have come down hard with those heavy punishments as a means of deterrence. Whether it is effective or not remains to be seen. The governments need to declare a state of emergency on poverty and unemployment. That way, there may be less idle hands to conscript into these evil ways that seem to over run our country.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud. I concur that the prosecution had proved its case against Accused/Convict/Appellant herein beyond reasonable doubt on the counts of procuring or counselling another to commit the offence of kidnapping contrary to Section 11 of the Anti-kidnapping and Adoption Law of Ondo State, 2010 and for kidnapping contrary to S. 3 (ii) (b) of the same law.
It is plain from the evidence led that the appellant was in tango and conspired “positively” in the unfortunate crime with self-stated motive and the financial reward in the share stated by him.
A scrutiny of the evidence led, even without an eagle eye oozes the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The injunction of the apex Court in Shande Vs State (2005) 131 LRCN 2489 had been satisfied by the trial Court, therefore.
I must say that I share in the thoughtful judicial epistle of my lord, P. Mahmoud JCA in his leading Judgment and do think that integrity and honesty are key to living and leadership such that both the employed and unemployed will have services efficiently running and the techno drive for efficiency, certainty and precision of criminal investigation and prosecution may be attained without a fraudulent manipulation thereof by any of the stake holders. With integrity, leadership will do what ought be done and rightly too. The love of lucre and mundane but ephemeral is the gateway to such Justice rightly dispensed, against the Appellant.
What about the next world?
Courage to cross over to a better tomorrow propels good living and restrains greed and wantonness.
Appeal is dismissed.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: My learned brother PATRICIA. A. MAHMOUD, JCA. availed me the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered and subscribed to the reasoning together with the conclusion thereto.
The determination of the two (2) issues of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument distilled from the grounds of appeal is apt and judiciously and also judicially resolved the conflicts demonstrated by parties in the appeal.
My visitation to the Notice of Appeal dated 13 April, 2014 and perusal of the Amended Notice of Appeal dated 12th December, 2017 filed on 14th December, 2017 but deemed filed properly and served on the 16th day of January, 2018 containing three (3) grounds of appeal disclosed no allegation of fair hearing and its breach thereof. It is well known legal norm that appeal is fought on grounds of appeal filed vide the Notice of Appeal by the Appellant and the issues formulated therefrom. This Court being a Court of Appeal cannot and will not accommodate anything extraneous from the grounds of appeal filed and served by the Appellant on the respondent.
Be that as it may, this appeal in its circumstance cannot see the light of the day for being unmeritorious. I too dismissed the appeal as done in the lead judgment and affirmed the decision of lower Court delivered on the 26th of March, 2014 by Hon. Justice A O. Odusola of the Ondo State High Court of Justice sitting in Akure.
Appearances:
Mr. Emeka ObegoluFor Appellant(s)
Mr. B. A. AderosinFor Respondent(s)
