MUHAMMADU IBRAHIM v. THE STATE (2019)

MUHAMMADU IBRAHIM v. THE STATE

(2019)LCN/13516(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 19th day of June, 2019

CA/K/134/C/2017

RATIO

CONSPIRACY:HOW TO PROVE THAT AN ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY

CONSPIRACY: DEFINITION
As also held by the Supreme Court in the case of Busari v State (2015) 5 NWLR Part 1452 Page 343 at 367 Para D-E, per Muntaka- Coomassie JSC:
Conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to do an act which is an offence to agree to. Evidence of direct plot between conspirators is hardly capable of proof. The bottom line of the offence is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators to commit an offence and meeting of the minds need not be physical. Offence of conspiracy can be inferred by what each person does or does not do in furtherance of the offence of conspiracy.PER OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

ARMED ROBBERY: INGREDIENTS

With regard to the offence of armed robbery, case law has identified three constitutive ingredients of the offence, namely: –
1. There was a robbery;
2. That the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons
3. That the accused was one of the robbers.
See Busari v State (2015) 5 NWLR Part 1452 Page 343 at 378 Para e-F per Okoro JSC; Olayinka vs. The State (2007) 9 NWLR Part 1040 Page 561 at 582 Para G-H per Tobi JSC ; Afolalu v. The State (2010) 16 NWLR Part 1220 Page 554 at 610 Para A-C per I.T. Muhammad JSC.
In order therefore to secure the conviction of an accused person for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must satisfy the requirement of these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Where this is not done, the case must fail. See Afolalu vs. The State ((2010) 16 NWLR Part 1220 Page 554 at 610 Para A-C per I.T. Muhammad JSC; Osuagwu v State (2016) 16 NWLR Part 1537 Page 31 at 55 Para A-E per Nweze JSC.PER OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

Abdur-Rahman Umar (DPP Katsina State) with him, I.D Baka (State Counsel, Ministry Of Justice Katsina

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MUHAMMADU IBRAHIM Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant at the lower Court was charged with the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery punishable under Section 6(b) and 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The Appellant was alleged to have conspired with others at large and robbed one Saadatu Abubakar of the sum of N950,000.00 (Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) belonging to her husband.

To establish the charge against the Appellant, the Prosecution called 8 witnesses and tendered 14 exhibits.
The Appellant was the sole witness in his defence.

At the close of trial, Counsel to the parties filed and exchanged written addresses. Delivering judgment, I.B. Ahmed J of the Katsina State High Court, on 25/2/2016 found the Appellant guilty on both counts and sentenced him to death by hanging.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant has appealed, by a fourteen (14) ground Notice of Appeal filed on the 1st May 2017. The Notice of Appeal was subsequently amended and further amended, the

extant Notice of Appeal being that filed on 14/2/18 but deemed properly filed on 27/3/18, containing nine (9) grounds of appeal.

In prosecuting this appeal, the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of arguments.

The Appellant?s Brief of Arguments filed on 9/8/17 was deemed properly filed on 27/3/18, prepared by Habeeb A. Oredola Esq., in which five issues for determination were formulated, namely:
1. Whether having regard to the circumstances and from the totality of the evidence on record, the lower Court was right in convicting the Appellant for conspiracy and armed robbery in view of the lack of evidence to establish the ingredients of conspiracy or armed robbery?
2. Whether the findings of the learned trial judge is perverse, when the learned trial judge held that from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the Appellant was armed, when none of the prosecution witnesses identified the appellant as being at the scene of the crime or armed at any point whatsoever?
3. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when it failed to properly evaluate the evidence of the appellant and further placed the

burden of proof on him during the trial within trial to establish the involuntariness of Exhibit 13?
4. Whether the confessional statements, Exhibits 13 and 14 were properly admitted in evidence and utilized for the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, notwithstanding the appellant?s testimony that Exhibit 13 is involuntary and the retraction of Exhibit 14?
5. Whether the decision of the trial Court ought to be set aside in view of the material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the failure of the trial Court to properly evaluate the defence of the Appellant.

In the Respondent?s Brief, prepared and filed on 25/4/18 by Abdur-Rahman Umar, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Ministry of Justice, Katsina State, the five issues formulated by the Appellant?s Counsel were adopted.
?
The 1st and 4th issues formulated by the Appellant?s Counsel are sufficient to determine this appeal, I hold, and which, slightly modified for succinctness, are as follow:
1. Whether the confessional statements, Exhibits 13 and 14 were properly admitted in evidence and utilized for the conviction

and sentence of the Appellant, notwithstanding the appellant?s testimony that Exhibit 13 is involuntary and the retraction of Exhibit 14?
2. Whether having regard to the circumstances and from the totality of the evidence on record, the lower Court was right in convicting the Appellant for conspiracy and armed robbery.
Both issues shall be taken together
Learned Counsel to the Appellant has submitted that the trial Court placed heavy reliance on the alleged confessional statements Exhibits 13 and 14 in convicting the Appellant. He stated that the said exhibits were not voluntarily obtained, which violates the provision of Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act. He argued that Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act also stipulates that the prosecution must lead substantial, cogent and credible evidence to establish that the confession was obtained voluntarily.
?
He argued that from the testimony of the Appellant during the trial within trial, the confession of the Appellant was obtained with the use of extreme torture but that the trial judge disregarded this evidence and admitted Exhibit 13, thereby placing the burden of proving the

involuntariness of the confessional statement on the Appellant. He cited Borishade v. FRN (2012) 18 NWLR (pt.1332) P 347, Dairo Vs. FRN (2012) 16 NWLR (pt. 1325) 129.

He questioned why the Appellant was detained for more than 10 days, deducing that he was tortured over this period, before his confession was obtained, and which, he said, raises doubts on the circumstances surrounding the confession.

He argued further that Exhibit 14 was retracted by the Appellant on the ground that he never made it. The trial Court however admitted it in evidence and placed much premium on the said Exhibit, in the absence of credible, independent and corroborative evidence to test its veracity. He cited Gabriel v. State (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1190) P.280, Lawrence Oguno & Anor vs. State (2013) LPELR ? 20623 (SC), State v. Usman Isah (2012) 7 SC (pt. 111) P. 93, State v. Azeez (2008) 4SCNJ 325.
?
Counsel also submitted that the evidence of PW7 used by the trial judge to corroborate Exhibits 13 and 14 are nothing but hearsay evidence and inadmissible, as his narration of events did not emanate from his personal or direct knowledge and ought to have been

discountenanced by the lower Court. He cited Ikaria vs. State (2012) 12 SC (pt. vi) page 1 at 37 ? 38, Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 927) p. 237.

In response, the Acting DPP submitted that in order to prove the voluntariness of Exhibit 13 the Respondent called PWA who testified that the Appellant gave his statement voluntarily and that this was never contradicted under cross-examination. To corroborate PWA, PWB also testified and his evidence was also not impeached despite the lengthy cross examination. The Appellant, he said, was not consistent in his objection to Exhibit 13. The Acting DPP made reference to some of the Appellant?s evidence, citing the case of F.R.N vs. Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR (pt. 1454) 141 at 191 Para F, submitting that once a confessional statement is admitted following trial within trial proceedings, it becomes difficult for an appellate Court to intervene in challenge of its admissibility.

He further argued that the Respondent proved its case that Exhibits 13 and 14 were voluntarily made by the Appellant through credible witnesses as against the Appellants contention that the lower Court placed the burden of

proving the involuntariness of the confession on the Appellant, thereby offending the provision of Section 29 of the Evidence Act.
Counsel added that having discharged the burden placed on it, the accused has a burden to rebut the presumption that he committed the offence. He relied on Section 137 of Evidence Act and the case of Jua vs. State (2010) 4 NWLR (pt. 1184) 217 at 257 Paras D-G.

It was his further submission that the Appellant was transferred to the State CID on the 25/11/2011 and his statement (Exhibit 13) was recorded on the 27/5/2011, as against the Appellant?s contention that the unnecessary delay in obtaining his statement raises serious doubt.

On the contention of the Appellant that there was no credible independent and corroborative evidence of his retracted statement, the Acting DPP submitted that corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused committed the offence nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witnesses, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respect material to the charge, citing Ali vs. State (2012) 7 NWLR (pt. 1299) 209 at 260 Paras A-F,

Ogunbayo vs. State (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1035) 157 at 179 Para 4. The evidence of all prosecution witnesses and all exhibits, particularly Exhibits 13A and 13B corroborates Exhibit 14A and 14B in some material aspects, he submitted. The lower Court was right, he submitted, in convicting the Appellant of the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery.

As rightly submitted by the Acting DPP, a confessional statement alone can ground a conviction for armed robbery, provided it is voluntarily made, I hold. It is however desirable for a judge to find some evidence outside the confession which tends to show that the confession is true. See Busari v State (2015) 5 NWLR Part 1452 Page 343 at 372 Para D-F per Rhodes-Vivour JSC.

It is also settled law that where an accused person claims that he was forced to make a confessional statement, a trial within a trial will be required to determine its voluntariness. See FRN v Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR Part 1454 Page 141 at Page 178 Para E-F per Nweze JSC; Busari v State Supra at Page 374 Para C-D per Ngwuta JSC;
Exhibit 13A, whose English translation is Exhibit 13B is the alleged statement of the Appellant where he

confessed to conveying some persons to rob the relation of one of them.
An extract from Exhibit 13B reads:
. I could remember about two weeks ago Auwal told us that he has an uncle at Illala village Katsina State, he has money but they did not enjoy him, he wants us to go and rob him. Therefore, Auwal and his accomplice went and collected my car and proceed but when they came back they told me that they did not succeed. Until on Monday 23/05/2011 at about 1400hrs, in the evening I and the following persons (1) Ibrahim Zakariya (2) Yakubu Zadkariya (3) Mohammed (4) Auwal and (5) Abubakar, we all discussed that we are going back to Illela village Katsina State in order to rob Auwal?s uncle and get money. After the discussion on Tuesday 24/05/2011 at about 1400hrs in the evening I conveyed them in my golf vehicle and left Kano to illela…..?

He continued, that they were armed with guns. They were however overpowered and three of them were killed by the crowd. He was handed by the crowd to the Police.
Exhibit 14B is also a confessional statement, similar in contents to Exhibit 13B.

The Appellant?s Counsel points to the defence put up by the Appellant at his trial within trial, where he alleged that he was tortured. In his words:
?Sgt. Rufai then proceeded to asked me whether I had committed the offence of armed robbery to which I told him that I did not know anything about it and I had not committed same. He then chained both my hands and legs and began to beat me with a stick. I was beaten on the head as a result of which I fell down unconscious and did not know when I was returned to the cell. (Witness showed the Court a scar on his head where he was alleged to have been beaten). Then the following day after regaining consciousness , I was once again taken out of the cell and taken to the place upstairs and again asked whether I commented the offence to which I replied him then I did not know anything of it. He then pressed (marching) my left leg where I was also previously injured and ordered to say the truth. As I could not resist the pains as a result of marching the injury leg, I had no option but to admit the offence. I had spent ten days at the state CID when the same Sgt. Rufa?I Sule brought a document to me

to sign and told me that I was going to be released by the Court I did sign the document. As to the confessional statement tendered by Sgt Rufa?I Sule, I did not freely and voluntarily make that statement as I could not resist the torture. At the material time I did not sign the statement until 10 days after when the document was brought to me and I signed same. It was the document that Sgt Rufa?i Sule told me that if I signed it I would be released by the Court. That is all I know.?

Underlining Mine
Under cross examination at the trial within trial, excerpts of the question and answer went thus:
?Q: Was it a prepared statement that you asked to sign?
Ans.: Yes it was and it was not read to me before I was asked to sign.
Q: Am I right to say that you have other scars your body apart from the ones shown to the Court?
Ans.: Yes I have some other Scars.
Q: When you were injured were you taken to the hospital for treatment?
Ans.: No, I was not.
Q: So you have no medical records to show that you had injury on your body?
Ans.: No, as I was not taken to the hospital.?

The lower Court, in its ruling following the trial within trial held, at Page 55, rejecting the Appellant?s account in preference for the voluntariness and admissibility of the statements, inter alia:
?Further in his testimony as DWA, the accused person initially told the Court that he was beaten with sticks and injured on his forehead pointing to a scar on the forehead but later in the course of his testimony told the Court that it is as a result of PWA marching his injured leg that put him in a lot of pains that made him to confess to the allegation that he committed the robbery. In the course of cross of examination DWA also told the Court that he was not taken to the hospital for the injuries he sustained and that he had some other scars on his body earlier prior to this case and no record that he sustained nay injury while with the police. This piece of evidence casts doubt as to whether the Accused Person was beaten by the police, let alone injuring him to the extent of going ahead to confess to the allegation. In other words, DWA?s assertion that he was beaten and injured by PWA and others lacked any corroboration and that since the

witness had told the Court that the scar on his forehead was not the only scar on his body which he had prior to this incident that cannot provide the required corroboration. I therefore reject the Accused Person?s assert on that he was tortured into making the statement.?

I do not agree with the lower Court that the fact that the Appellant was not taken to the hospital, together with his admission that he had other marks on his body aside from the scar of the alleged beating on his head, is proof that he was not tortured.

It is rare, if not unheard of, that an accused person in incarceration, following torture by his accusers, will be taken by the same accusers for treatment or that he would be allowed to go to hospital for treatment. Also, the fact that the Appellant has other scars on his body does not negate the fact that the scar on his forehead was not inflicted on him by the Police in order to extract a confession from him.
?
Indeed, the Appellant, giving evidence in his defence in the trial within trial, as highlighted above, showed the lower Court the scar on his forehead, which fact was noted by the Court. I thus do not

consider the reasons given by the lower Court adequate for the rejection of the Appellant?s complaint of the involuntariness of the statements.

It is undoubtedly true that once a confessional statement is admitted in evidence following a trial within trial, the Appellate Court is reluctant to intervene in an appeal against the admissibility of the statement. This is because the evaluation of evidence presented at the trial is based on the credibility of the witnesses, which duty is solely that of the trial Court, since the appellate Court is not privileged to have seen the witnesses testify nor watch their demeanour. See Lasisi v State (2013) 9 NWLR Part 1358 Page 74 at 96-97 Para H-A per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was); Ogedengbe v State (2014) 12 NWLR Part 1421 Page 338 at 358 Para F-H per M.D. Muhammad JSC.
In a case, as the present, however, where there is a patent failure of the trial Court to adequately consider the incidents of torture of the witness, the appellate Court will indeed be hesitant to place much reliance on such statement but look for some evidence outside it, to test its veracity.
?
Even where the statement has been

admitted, the Courts are adjured to have, outside the confessional statement, some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight, of circumstances which make it probable that the confession is true and correct.
The following must be answered to the Courts satisfaction.
1) Is there anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true?
2) Is it corroborated?
3) Are the relevant statements of facts made in it true as far as they can be tested?
4) Was the prisoner one who had the opportunity of committing the offence?
5) Is the confession possible
6) Is the alleged confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established it is desirable but not mandatory that some evidence outside the confession is available, however slight of circumstances which makes it probable that the confession is true.
See Abirifon v State (2013) 13 NWLR Part 1372 Page 619 at 635 Para A-G per S.S. Alagoa JSC; Onyenye V. State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 586 per Adekeye JSC; Nwachukwu v. State (2007) 17 NWLR Part 1062 Page 31 at 69-70 Para D-D, per Ogbuagu JSC.

In the instant case, PW1, whose house was

burgled, denied ever seeing the Appellant. PW2, the wife of PW1 and who was accosted when the robbers came looking for PW1, her husband, also said she did not know the Appellant. PW3, a driver, who heard gun shots and ran to the scene and was shot in the stomach by one of the robbers, also denied knowing the Appellant. PW4, a farmer, who heard shouts coming from the house of PW1 and ran to the scene, where he met a man holding a gun and who hit him, causing him to fall down unconscious, made no mention of the Appellant.

The only mention of the Appellant was by PW7, Ibrahim Adamu Illela, a farmer, whose testimony is that on the day in question, he heard people raising an alarm. He heard the sound of a gunshot and climbed over a fence to see what was happening.
His evidence is as follows:
I then entered my in-law?s neighbors house and climbed the fence where I saw the attackers coming out from a house armed. Then as a result of the alarm raised people in the town blocked the outlets to the town. I did not know the attackers. When the attackers realized that the roads were blocked they opened fire on some people. As were forcing themselves

out of the town they met a big road block that they could not penetrate and as they had exhorted their bullets, they tried to escape by running away. The people then pounced on the attackers and killed 3 of them while 3 escaped. I then sent for the police at Marina who later came and interviewed the village head. The police asked for evidence and they were shown the arms recovered on the ground and inside their vehicle and the houses they attacked. The three people who were killed were conveyed to Safana Police Station. The DPO at Safana warned us not to kill any suspect again but try to arrest them alive so that he would know from where they came from and was later informed that one of them was arrested who now happened to be the Accused Person and was taken to Marina police station for questioning. It was there he told the police that he actually participated on the robbery and that they came from Kano and it was one Auwalu who he said had his family both in the village and in Kano.

It is clear from the testimony of this witness that he did not see the Appellant at the scene of the incident or know how he was arrested.

Under cross examination, his response to some of the questions put to him were:
?Q: Were you there when the accused person was arrested?
Ans: No, I was not.
Q: How many people could the vehicle attackers went with could carry (sic)?
Ans: They went with Golf vehicle which could carry all the six of them.
Q: But nobody was in that Car when you saw them?
Ans: Nobody was inside the car.
Q: At the time you saw them you did not identify Auwalu as the Accused person?
Ans: No, I did not.?

Similarly, PW8, Sgt Murtala Idris serving at the Divisional Police Headquarters, Safana testified that a case of armed robbery was reported at their station and that five-armed robbers with sophisticated weapons inside a Golf Car attacked the village, as a result of which three of them were killed by the villagers, two escaped and one, the Appellant, was arrested by the Marina police. His further evidence is that he took the Appellant?s statement, which statement, in spite of its retraction by the Appellant was admitted, as aforesaid, as Exhibits 14A and 14B.
?
Excerpts from the cross examination of this witness are the

following:
Q: Your investigation also revealed that one Insp. Audu Ala of the Marina Police outpost arrested the Accused Person?
Ans: Yes, that is correct.
Q: If one should inform you that the Accused was not arrested by the said Insp, would he be telling lies?
Ans: Yes.
Q: If also one says that the Accused was arrested not at the police outpost would he be right?
Ans: No.
Q: If I say that the Accused Person was not arrested with any weapon, would I be right?
Ans: Yes, you would be right.
Q: The Accused was not arrested at the scene of the crime, is that correct?
Ans: Yes.
Q: Did you find anything belonging to the Accused Person?
Ans: Yes, I found a Golf Car black in colour.
Q: Do you know its registration no?
Ans: It was written in my report.
Q: Did you take the plate No. to the revenue office so as to identify the owner of the vehicle?
Ans: I did not.
Q: Since you did not do that then you had not proved who owned the Car, am I right?
Ans: Somehow you are right.”
?
In proof of his innocence, the Appellant, in his evidence in Court, stated that

he is a business man and lives in Kano, and that on the day in question he went to ?collect his belongings for his business?. He went to look for one Ilyasu who was his business partner. When he dropped out of his vehicle, he was challenged as to why he was there. Following his response, they took him to the police station. He repeated his reason for being there. The said Iliya came to see him, promised to come back but failed to. The Police then took him to Katsina. He denied that he was arrested in the bush. He also denied accompanying anyone to rob PW1. He denied identifying any of the corpses of the robbers at the Police Station. He denied that the statements were his, pointing out that the names in the statement allegedly said to be that of his mother and children are wrong. Furthermore, he only has four children instead of the eight mentioned and whose names are different from those in the statement. He also has only one wife and not the two mentioned in the statement. His denial under cross examination was consistent. He was never asked of his ownership of the golf vehicle.

The lower Court, in its judgment, however held:

On the third and final ingredient that the Accused Person with the arms participated in the robbery which makes it armed robbery, the testimony of PW7 and presence of Exhibit 13 and 14 say it all on the participation of the testimony of PW7 and presence of the Accused person while armed in the robbery incident which led to the killing of three of the robbers, the arrest of the Accused person while two others escaped from the scene. The accused person?s confessional statements is Exhibit 13 and 14 which I hold as free, voluntary and unequivocal and corroborated by the testimony of PW7 which remained unchallenged gave Vivid account of the whole episode preparatory to the attack, during and after the attack from the house?s mouth. This indeed completes the third and final ingredient ?..I discountenance the testimony of the Defence witness and equally dismiss same as nothing but an afterthought which would not in any way count as a defence

As submitted by the learned Counsel to the Appellant, Habeeb A. Oredola, the burden placed on the Respondent, by Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 is to establish

the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and this legal burden does not shift to the Appellant at any point whatsoever. See Ikaria v State (2012) 12 SC Page 1 at 19 Lines 22-26 per M.D. Muhammad JSC.
The Appellant was charged with the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery.

In proving the guilt of the Appellant for conspiracy, there must be an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act and the agreement must be followed by an act to give effect to the agreement. See Muhammed V. State (2014) ALL FWLR Part 335 Pg. 403.
As also held by the Supreme Court in the case of Busari v State (2015) 5 NWLR Part 1452 Page 343 at 367 Para D-E, per Muntaka- Coomassie JSC:
?Conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to do an act which is an offence to agree to. Evidence of direct plot between conspirators is hardly capable of proof. The bottom line of the offence is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators to commit an offence and meeting of the minds need not be physical. Offence of conspiracy can be inferred by what each person does or does not do in furtherance of the offence of conspiracy.?

The prosecution failed, I hold, to prove any agreement between the Appellant and the robbers to commit armed robbery. It also failed to prove an essential constitutive ingredient of the offence of armed robbery, that the

Appellant was one of the armed robbers.
The identification of the Appellant as one of the robbers was based largely on hearsay evidence, which, I hold, is inadmissible.
Furthermore, in cases revolving around the identification of the accused in the commission of the offence with which he is charged, where the quality of the evidence is poor, the accused should be acquitted, except other evidence abounds in support of the identification. See Ikaria v State Supra at Page 17 lines 3-9 per M.D. Muhammad JSC.
I shall adopt the dictum of this learned jurist where he quoted their earlier decision in Bozin v State (1985) 7 SC Page 276 at 280, where the Court held:
“… When, as in this case, the evidence of the identity of the appellant is punctured with improbabilities and so many questions remain unanswered and unexplained, the trial Court should have hesitated a lot before being satisfied and if it were in doubt, (a doubt which any impartial view of the evidence in this case should induce), it was its duty to give the benefit of that doubt to the appellant.”
In a case like the present, it is always better, I hold, to err on the side of

caution and exercise restraint in sending a man to the gallows, unless it is patent that he beyond all reasonable doubt committed the crime. Doubts created in this case should be resolved, I hold, in favour of the Appellant.

I accordingly resolve both the 3rd and 4th issues for determination in favour of the Appellant.

This appeal accordingly succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the lower Court for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery are set aside. The Appellant is discharged and acquitted.

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in draft the lead judgment delivered by my Lord, OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A, with whom I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal has considerable merit and that same be allowed. The appeal is allowed hence the conclusion and sentencing of the appellant for Conspiracy and Armed Robbery at the High Court of Katsina State vide the Judgment delivered on the 25th February, 2016 Charge No. KTH/11C/2011 is set aside.

?JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have

read in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie, JCA. My Lord has painstakingly considered all the vital issues for determination in this appeal. Her dissecting of the alleged confessional statement, and coming to the conclusion that it was indeed not voluntary is commendable. I am therefore in agreement with her that there is merit in this appeal. Same is also accordingly allowed by me, in consequence of which the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is hereby set aside. An order of discharge and acquittal is hereby made in the Appellant?s favour.

Appearances:

Habeeb OredolaFor Appellant(s)

Abdur-Rahman Umar (DPP Katsina State) with him, I.D Baka (State Counsel, Ministry Of Justice Katsina State)For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Habeeb OredolaFor Appellant

AND

Abdur-Rahman Umar (DPP Katsina State) with him, I.D Baka (State Counsel, Ministry Of Justice Katsina State)For Respondent