ABUBAKAR HALILU BUDA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
(2019)LCN/12569(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 25th day of January, 2019
CA/S/43C/2018
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: DUTY OF THE COURT
“Generally, it is the duty of an Appellate Court like this Court to consider all issues placed before it for determination. But where the Court is of the view that a consideration of one of the issues is enough to dispose of the Appeal, it is not under any obligation to consider all the issues posed for determination. See AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (LTD) V. INTEGRATED DIMENSIONAL SYTEM LTD. & ORS. (2012) LPELR 9710 (SC).” PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ABUBAKAR HALILU BUDA Appellant(s)
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Respondent(s)
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The Appellant was arraigned before the Federal High of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto on three count charges for offences contrary to Sections 1(2), 15 and 17 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013. The prosecution sought to tender two confessional statements alleged to have been made by the Appellant at the Department of security services through the Investigating Police Officer, one Isiyaku Musa Muhammad who testified as PW4. Appellant?s counsel objected to the admissibility of the two statements, that they were obtained involuntarily.
A trial within trial was conducted to determine the voluntariness or otherwise of the statements. The prosecution called one witness; the Appellant testified for himself and called one witness. Written addresses were ordered filed, exchanged and adopted. In a ruling delivered on 22/02/2018, the lower Court overruled the objection and admitted the two confessional statements and marked them Exhibits 1 & 1A respectively.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this Appeal by a notice of Appeal filed on 26/02 2018. The Record of Appeal was deemed compiled and transmitted on 16/03/2018. The Appellant’s Brief of argument was filed on 27/03 2018 and settled by Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq. The Respondent’s Brief filed on 22/10/2018 was settled by Almustapha Abubakar Esq. The Appellant’s reply Brief was filed on 1/11/2018. The Appellant formulated four issues for determination which the Respondent adopted thus:-
1) Whether the lower Court was right in law when it predicated its decision on purported statements dated 12th April, 2016 and 16th April, 2016 in the trial within trial (Distilled from ground 2)
2) Whether the lower Court was correct in law to have held that the narrations of the Appellant in the trial within trial at the lower Court was not hinged on the involuntariness of the two statements attributed to the Appellant (Distilled from ground 4).
3) Whether there was proper evaluation of evidence at the lower Court before concluding that the statements attributed to the Appellant were voluntarily made and admitting same in evidence. (Distilled from ground 6).
4) Whether the decision of the lower Court was correct in law and in accordance with the principle of fair hearing enshrined in Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. (Distilled from grounds 1, 3 & 5 of the grounds.
Arguing the Appeal, Counsel submitted that in trial within trial it is trite that the duty of the prosecution is to prove that the statements of the Appellant were made voluntarily. He referred to OBIDIOZO & ORS V THE STATE (1987) 2 NSCC 1239; DAWA V. THE STATE 8-9 SC 236. Counsel submitted that the two statements were made on 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 as stated by PW4 contained at Page 72 of the Record of Appeal. According to counsel, at Page 73 of the Record of Appeal, the lower Court adjourned the case to 14/11/2016 at 12:00PM for the trial within trial in respect of the statements made on 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015. Learned counsel further submitted that at Page 91 of the Records the lower Court instead of making its findings in respect of the statements of 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2015, concentrated on purported statements purportedly made on 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016. He referred to the Ruling of the lower Court at Page 91 lines 1 to 9 of the Records and submitted that it was the purported statements dated 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016 that the lower Court had in mind when it overruled the objection of the voluntariness of the statements and admitted them into evidence as Exhibits 1 and 1A.
According to counsel, since there was no statements dated 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016 before the lower Court and no trial within trial was conducted in respect of such, therefore the ruling of the lower Court in respect of the trial within trial cannot stand. He urged the Court to so hold. Generally, it is the duty of an Appellate Court like this Court to consider all issues placed before it for determination. But where the Court is of the view that a consideration of one of the issues is enough to dispose of the Appeal, it is not under any obligation to consider all the issues posed for determination. See AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (LTD) V. INTEGRATED DIMENSIONAL SYTEM LTD. & ORS. (2012) LPELR 9710 (SC).
I will therefore proceed to determine whether the lower Court delivered its Ruling regarding the trial within trial in respect of the two statements dated 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016 and not in respect of the ones dated 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 respectively. At Page 73 lines 3-5 of the Record PW4 stated as follows:-
‘…the first statement of the Defendant was recorded on 12/04/2015 which was the day of the arrest. The Defendant gave an additional statement which was recorded on 16/04/2015.’
Furthermore, the prosecution at Page 73 lines 1 – 4 of the Records sought to tender those statements into evidence thus: – ‘We seek to tender the statement of the defendant made on 12/04/2015 in Hausa language with the English language translation and the statement made by the defendant on 16/04/2015 in Hausa language with English translation’.
At Page 73 lines 21, the lower Court adjourned for trial within trial as it relates to the voluntariness of the statements made on the 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015. At the same Page the Court held thus: – ..Case adjourned to 14/11/2016 at 12:00pm for trial within trial’. It therefore appears from all of the above that all the issues joined by the parties relates to the statements of 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 and no more. Surprisingly, the lower Court at Page 91 of the Records instead of delivering its ruling in respect of the issues as canvassed and raised by the parties relating to the statements of 12/04/15 and 16/04/2015 concentrated on none existing statements made on 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016 which the Court held were made voluntarily.
At Page 91 lines 1 – 9 of the Record it held: – ‘…Prosecution on the 24th of October 2016 applied to tender through PW4, two statements of the defendant made on 12th April 2016 and 16th April, 2016 respectively together with their English translations. This was objected to by the learned counsel to the defendant on the grounds firstly that the statements were not made voluntarily and also in respect of the English version, there was no evidence that PW5 translated the statements into English language. The Court therefore ordered a trial within trial in order to ascertain the voluntariness or otherwise of the statements’. A careful look at the Records will reveal that there were no statements purportedly dated the 12/04/16 and 16/04/16 respectively which was not the object of the objection of the Appellant upon which the lower Court could have based its ruling on.
The lower Court was therefore in error when it delivered its Ruling dated 22/02/2018 in respect of the statements dated 12/04/2016 and 16/04/2016 which were not before it; instead of the ones dated 12/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 tendered before it by the prosecution. There is therefore no need to consider and determine the remaining three issues for determination. The Appeal succeeds. The Ruling of the lower Court delivered on 22/02/2018 by R. M. Aikawa J is hereby set aside. The matter is hereby remitted to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to be assigned to another Judge other than R. M. Aikawa J., to be tried de novo.
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I have read the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Abdullahi M. Bayero, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is meritorious. I abide by the consequential order remitting the case to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment to another judge other than R.M. Aikawa J., for hearing de novo.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the Judgment of my learned Brother ABDULLAHI M. BAYERO, JCA just delivered and I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusions in allowing the Appeal as meritorious. I abide by other consequential orders of Court.
Appearances:
Ibrahim AbdulkadirFor Appellant(s)
Al Mustapha Abubakar, Esq.For Respondent(s)
