ADEKUNLE OLATUNJI v. THE STATE (2016)

ADEKUNLE OLATUNJI v. THE STATE

(2016)LCN/8534(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 29th day of April, 2016

CA/I/54A/2013

JUSTICES

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

NONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

ADEKUNLE OLATUNJI Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS ARE CHARGED WITH THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE, THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED MUST BE THE SAME OR SIMILAR

But the evidence against the appellant and the discharged 3rd accused person are similar or the same wherein the discharge of the 3rd accused should also lead to the discharge of the appellant in the joint trial as held by Supreme Court in OKORO VS. STATE (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt.1290) 351 at 360 ratio 12.
?Where two or more persons are charged with the commission of an offence, and the evidence against all the accused persons is the same or similar, the discharge of one must as a matter of law affect the discharge of the others, The reasoning being that if one for want of convincing evidence that must automatically affect all the others in the light of the fact that the evidence against the accused persons is tied together…” PER OKORONKWO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE AN INTERPRETER HAS BEEN USED IN THE RECORDING OF A STATEMENT, THE STATEMENT IS INADMISSIBLE UNLESS THE INTERPRETER IS CALLED AS A WITNESS

The case of Olalekan vs. The State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.746) 746 was relied on where it was stated:
“The general proposition is well settled that where an interpreter has been used in the recording of a statement, the statement is inadmissible unless the person who interpreted it is called as a witness as well as the person who wrote it down. See R VS. AGBUEWU (1949) 12 WACA 483. The necessity of the interpreter confirming the statement and therefore rendering it admissible was stated in R vs. GIDADO 6 WACA 60 at p. 62. PER OKORONKWO, J.C.A.

DEFINITION OF A HEARSAY EVIDENCE

It is well established law that the evidence of a statement made to a witness is called “hearsay” if the object of such evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is a statement made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings as evidence of any fact stated.? per Karibi Whyte JSC page 37 para. A – C and 34 para. E ? G.” PER OKORONKWO, J.C.A.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant Adekunle Olatunji as 2nd accused was charged and tried with two others for the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6 (b), punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act (Cap R. 11) Laws of Federation of Nigeria respectively. The offences were allegedly committed at No. 81/33 Elega Federal Housing Estate Abeokuta on 22nd June, 2006 and at a place opposite IMA College Surulere Area off Abiola Way, Abeokuta on 14th December, 2006.

In the judgment delivered in the case on 2013/12, the High Court of Ogun State found the appellant and the 1st accused in that trial guilty of the offence charged and sentenced each to death by hanging. The 3rd accused in that trial was found not guilty and discharged.

By Notice of Appeal issued and filed 29th March 2012, the appellant appealed against the trial and conviction. The Notice was subsequently amended by the amended Notice of Appeal filed 15/5/16 which

raised the following five grounds of appeal herein after reproduced without the prolix particulars.
“GROUND ONE
The judgment of the Lower Court is unreasonable, bias, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record.
GROUND TWO
The Lower Court erred in law in convicting the appellant of the offences charged when it found the evidence of the appellant as 2nd accused not shaking and unchallenged by the prosecution.
GROUND THREE
The Lower Court erred in law in convicting the appellant for conspiracy when the same found the 3rd accused (the co-conspirator) not liable.
GROUND FOUR
The Lower Court erred in law, having admitted in evidence and acted upon the purported confessional statement of the appellant Exhibit G and G1 which was made in Yoruba language and translated into English without the interpreter called as an independent witness for the purpose of the interpretation made.
GROUND FIVE
The Lower Court erred in law when it held that the prosecution provides its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.”

?The facts that led to the prosecution trial and conviction of the

appellant is well narrated in the respondent’s brief which I shall adopt as it concisely captured the essence of the events, it was rendered as follows:
“The summary of the prosecution case was that there were series of armed robberies incident in Abeokuta between June December 2006. On the 22/06/06, Sherifat Bolanle Akinlade (Pw1) and her late husband were robbed by armed robbers in their home at Federal Housing Estate Elega at about 1.30 am. There was electricity throughout the operation powered by a generating set. Pw1 switched off the light when she noticed that they were armed robbers but the armed robbers switched it on and they were not masked. After ransacking PW1’s room and that of her husband, they made away with valuables, the armed robbers thereafter instructed PW1 to lead them to her mother-in-law?s apartment. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law were robbed of their valuables carted away. A call was made to the police who sprang into action and immediately the first Accused person (Ayodeji Kayode) was arrested and some items found with him, which were later identified by PW1 as part of the valuables taken from her house.
On

14/12/06 Mr. Adio Ayodele (PW2) came back from church vigil in the early hours of 14/12/06, When PW4 (Kehinde Ayodele) the son of PW2 was about locking the door, he noticed that there was a force from the other side of the door and when he asked who was at the door he was informed that they were Armed robbers. PW2, PW4 and PW3 (Mrs. Mary Ayodele) allowed the armed men to enter. The armed robbers entered the house; PW4 ran out of the house and jumped the fence. After some time, the PW4 was able to get hold and they arrested the 3rd Accused person where he was trying to escape and he was immediately identified by PW4, PW3 & PW2. The 3rd Accused person was taken to the police station.
On the 21/12/06, the appellant (2nd Accused Person) was arrested and the 1st Accused person identified him as the gang leader.”

For the appellant, the statements of facts were given as follows:
“There were two robbery incidents which occurred at B1/33 Elega Federal Housing Estate on 22/6/2006 and at a place opposite IMA College Surulere Area, Off Abiola Way, on 14/12/2006 at Abeokuta respectively. The appellant was arrested on 19/12/2006 at Amuloko Ibadan by the

police who acted on the implicating confessional statement of the 3rd accused who was eventually discharged and acquitted. The Investigating Police Officer (IPO), PW8 testified thus:
“It was the statement of the 3rd accused that made the IPO from Adatan Division to go to Ibadan in search of the 2nd accused.? (See page 165 lines 20 – 21 of the record),
The Lower Court in its judgment held the said statement of the 3rd accused thus:
“Looking through the testimonies of these witnesses, as stated above, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion, that the evidence outside the confession (i.e. statement of the 3rd accused exhibit to F & F1) are not strong enough show that the content of Exhibit F (translation in F1) is true,” see page 402 lines 7 – 10 of the record,
None of the prosecution witnesses, who were victims of the crime indentified the appellant as the one with a bad eye in their written statements to the police when the matter was fresh in their minds, see pages 7 – 8 of the record.
The purported identification of the appellant by PW1 and PW2 only came in their testimonies at trial, two years after the arrest of the

appellant who was shown to the prosecution witnesses as the robber who attacked them. PW1 in her testimony in Court on 23/6/2008 said, thereafter, ?I was called up from Eleweran to come and identify the accused persons and some others who they had arrested. Then I went to the State CID of Eleweran where I was able to identify the 2nd accused who has bad eye.? This identity of one who has one bad eye was not supplied to the police two years earlier when she made her statement to the police.
The appellant denied his involvement in the alleged crime in his testimony in Court; see pages 226 – 230 of the record of appeal. The appellant testified of his previous sour relationship with the police who eventually arrested and investigated him. In evidence in chief he said;
?At Adatan, Sgt Ibe (PW2) said after I ran away, have they not caught me? That I wrote a petition against them when they arrested my child named Toheed Olatunji, At that time I was living at Abeokuta.? See page 227 lines 12 ? 14 of the record.?
None of the properties of the victims were recovered from the appellant when search was conducted in his house.

No weapon allegedly used to commit the crime was recovered and tendered in evidence.”

Against this background, the appellant formulated these four issues for determination viz:
“i. Whether upon proper evaluation of evidence led by the prosecution, the Lower Court would still have found the appellant guilty as charged? (Distilled from Ground 1)
ii. Whether the Lower Court having found the evidence of the appellant unchallenged and used same to discharge and acquit the 3rd accused would be legally justified to disbelieved same evidence and convict the appellant? (From Ground 2)
iii. Whether Exhibits G & G1 the purported confessional statement of the appellant translated from Yoruba to English language were properly admitted in evidence in the absence of a sworn independent interpreter.
(From Ground 4)
iv. Whether the prosecution had proved the case of conspiracy and robbery against the appellant? In the events of two robberies as of 22/6/2006 and 14/12/2006 respectively in the light of the evidence led? (From Ground 3)”

?For the respondent, the following two issues were raised:
“1. Whether from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial, the prosecution has proved the offence of

Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the admission of the Appellant’s confessional statements in evidence by the trial Court was wrong having regard to the circumstances of the case.”

The appellant’s counsel A. A. Malik in his brief argued issues 1, 2 and 3 together raising questions of perception and evaluation of evidence and relying on the cases of Joseph vs. the State (2011) All FWLR (Pt.599) 1006 at 1018 and Akinbisade vs. The State (2007) All FWLR (Pt.344) 17 at 42 contend that the trial judge did not properly evaluate the evidence led at the trial and as an illustration, appellant contend that while the trial judge gave little space of four pages from page 393 – 396 to “treat the case of 1st and 2nd accused persons together as evaluation of evidence to find them guilty; the trial judge devoted 15 pages from page 396 – 421 of the record to evaluate the case of the 3rd accused person and “not surprisingly came to the verdict of discharge.”

On the confessional statement of the appellant, appellant contend that the trial

judge should have treated same in the manner he (trial judge) treated the case of the 3rd accused whom he discharged on the strength of the evidence of the appellant denying knowledge of 3rd accused. Appellant insist that the trial judge cannot approbate part of statement of appellant and reprobate the rest to the detriment of the appellant. He relied on Suberu vs. The State (2010) 31 WRN 1 at 25 – 26.

On identification, appellant seem to contend that on the facts the appellant was placed in such a manner that the PW1 had no other option than to identify the appellant. Appellant’s counsel citing State vs. Salawu (2012) All FWLR (Pt.614) 1 at 26 argue that it was as wrong and unacceptable as the farce the Supreme Court described in that case. Appellant also complained about the manner of sentencing particularly of the 1st accused who was not charged in count 2 and yet was sentenced to death on the count. Whereas it was 2nd (appellant) and 3rd accused that were charged on that count.

?Of particular concern in this appeal is the submission made on behalf of the appellant at paragraph 4.13 viz thus:
“For counts 2, 5 and 6, it was the appellant and the

3rd accused who were charged for conspiracy and robbery respectively. PW2, Mr. Adio Ayodele and PW3, Mrs. Mary Ayodele were victims of counts 2, 5 and 6 who testified that the 3rd accused was arrested at the scene of crime immediately after the robbery. It was upon the purported confessional statement of the 3rd accused (See page 165 lines 20 – 21 of the record), as testified by PW8 that the appellant was after several days arrested from his house at Ibadan. The Lower Court however found the said 3rd accused not liable, discharged and acquitted for those counts 2, 5 and 6 but curiously found the appellant guilty for these counts of conspiracy and robbery. But the evidence against the appellant and the discharged 3rd accused person are similar or the same wherein the discharge of the 3rd accused should also lead to the discharge of the appellant in the joint trial as held by Supreme Court in OKORO VS. STATE (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt.1290) 351 at 360 ratio 12.
?Where two or more persons are charged with the commission of an offence, and the evidence against all the accused persons is the same or similar, the discharge of one must as a matter of law affect the

discharge of the others, The reasoning being that if one for want of convincing evidence that must automatically affect all the others in the light of the fact that the evidence against the accused persons is tied together…”

The next important point raised in these issues is what the appellant’s counsel termed “Purported Confessional Statement” of the appellant Exhibit G and G1. It was argued that the interpreter who translated into English Language was not called other than the police IPO who obtained the statement and translated it into English.

called “hearsay” if the object of such evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is a statement made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings as evidence of any fact stated.? per Karibi Whyte JSC page 37 para. A – C and 34 para. E ? G.”

Issue No. 4 is a recapitulation of the preceding issues earlier dealt with.

?For the respondent, it was elaborately argued that conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances or from direct evidence of it citing Osetola & 1 Ors vs. The State (2012) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 347 at 363 and Upahar Vs. The State (2003) 6 NWLR 230 at 259.

On the discharge of the 3rd accused person after extensive evaluation by the trial judge which the appellant argues should also apply to him being charged jointly with the said 3rd accused, respondent argue that 3rd accused person was discharged and acquitted because there was no evidence to sustain the charge against him citing Idiok vs The State (2008) 4 SCM 59 at 63 where inter alia the Supreme Court held that the fact that:
?a co-accused is discharged and acquitted does not mean that the accused person as

a matter of course too will be discharged and acquitted. A Court will only do so if the evidence in exculpation of the two is the same…it depends entirely on the facts of the case before the Court.”

Of the confessional statement of the appellant, respondent submit that the mere retraction of the confession does not nullify its efficacy as it is the best guide to the truth of the role played by the appellant citing Salawu vs. Salawu (2011) 10 SCM 76.

Listing the ingredients of the crime of armed robbery as giving in Osuagwu vs. The State (2013) LPELR 19823, respondent submit that all the elements of the offence were proved by the prosecution in the witnesses called and in the confession Exhibit G & G1. Citing Osung vs. The State (2017) 11 SCM 176 at 197.

On identification, respondent argue that there was vivid identification of the appellant by PW1, PW2 and PW3 and that the identity of the appellant was not in issue as there is good and cogent evidence linking the appellant to the crime on the day of the incident which renders an identification parade not necessary or a superfluity citing Adebayo vs. The State (2014) 8 SCM 34 at 55 where

Ariwoola JSC explained the issue thus:
“That 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 but where there is certainty and no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime, there will be no need for identification parade to further identity the offender.”

Further on the confessional statement Exhibit G and G1, learned respondent’s counsel, on the interpretation of the statement into Yoruba submits thus at paragraph 5.03, 5.04 and 5.05:
“My Lords, contrary to the submission of the appellant’s counsel that PW8 took an oath as a witness not as an interpreter. I submit that an IPO in a criminal case testifies to all the activities carried out by him in the course of investigating a crime. In the instance case, PW9 testified that he was the IPO in this case and that the appellant volunteered his statement to him in Yoruba language which he interpreted and recorded in English language. Although he stated that he is from Anambra State but he

understands Yoruba language very well.
My Lords, the counsel to the 3rd accused person at the Lower Court, put a Yoruba proverb across to PW8 in Yoruba language in the open Court, which PW8 interpreted. I refer my Lords to page 119 of the record.
I submit, my Lords that the submission of the appellant?s counsel on the interpreter holds no water and urge my Lords to discountenance it.”

Having confessed to the crime in Exhibit ‘G’ & ‘G1’, the subsequent retraction of the statements do not derogate from their veracity citing FRNC vs. Iweka (2011) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 213 at 278; Nwachukwu vs. State (2007) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 447 at 454.

Respondent submits in relation to the confessional statements Exhibit G and G1 that:
“That a confessional statement that is amply corroborated in every particular and which is found to be free, is admissible in evidence regardless of its retraction can ground a conviction. Please see FRN VS. IWEKA (2011) 12 SCM (Pt.2) PAGES 213 @ 218.
And that confessional statement is the best evidence in criminal procedure and that once same is admitted in evidence it becomes part of the prosecution’s case which the

trial judge is bound to consider as done in the present case. I refer the Court to the case of NWACHUKWU vs. STATE (supra) @ page 455.”

In resolving the issues raised in this appeal and in considering the judgment of the trial Court, I will try to identify some features of the case that weighed heavily on the trial Judge. In doing so, it must be borne in mind that the appellant was the 2nd accused in the trial proceedings at the High Court.

The first of such feature was the evidence of the 1st prosecution witness PW2 Sherifat Bolanle Akinlade who with her family were victims of the robbery of 22nd June 2006. She, PW2 pointedly identified 1st and 2nd accused person as among the 3 robbers who attacked and robbed them on 22nd June 2006. Concerning the 2nd accused i.e. appellant PW1 said, perhaps, it is, better to reproduce the entire evidence of PW1. It runs thus:-
“P.W.1 – Sworn on the Holy Koran state in Yoruba language.
My name is Sherifat Bolanle Akinlade. I live at No.B1/33 Federal Housing Estate, Elega, Abeokuta. I am a Civil Servant; I work with the Ministry of Agriculture. I know the 1st and 2nd Accused Persons. I got to know the 1st and

2nd accused persons on Thursday 22nd June 2006.
On that day, there was no power supply, as such there was no light, but we had our generating plant on. Then at about 1.30a.m we heard a knock on our door. I was in my husband bed room and the knock was on the door of the bedroom. Then we questioned whom it was.
Then the voice came that we should get up and open the door that if they force it open we are in problem. Then we got up and opened the door. As we opened the door, three (3) people came in with gun in their hand. They asked for our hand set, i.e. our mobile phone. And we gave them our phones. After taken the phones from us then, instructed us to lie down.
They then asked if my husband was a police man and he replied that he is not. Then our room was ransacked. They took away some money.
After that, I was instructed to get up. It was the 2nd accused who asked me to stand up. He instructed me to cooperate with them and that I should lead them to my own room. Then they followed me to my room. They asked me to produce all the money I had and I brought out my money and gave them. They then started to check my room as well. They took some

clothes which included jeans trousers for my children and traveling bags and my jewelries.
Thereafter they asked me for who was living in the 2nd apartment to our room and I said my mother in law lives there. They instructed me to take them there. It was the 1st and 2nd accused and the other who came with them who were ordering me around.
Then I took them to my mother in law. By the time I got to my mother in law’s room, the light was off and the accused person switched on the light.
They then requested for money which her child kept with her and my mother in law said none of her children kept any money with her. Then they opened the wardrobe. It was the 2nd accused person who opened the wardrobe and ransacked all the clothing’s in the wardrobe. Then for then they went to my husband’s elder sister and also took her handsets from her. Thereafter they instructed my mother in law to close her door and then took me out.
They requested for the key of the car in the compound. Then I told them that it is in the house and they said I should go and bring it. One of them led me to the room. It was one of the other ones, but he is not among the accused

persons standing.
Then when he led me in, I took the key and we both went to meet the others outside and I handed over the key to the 2nd accused person.
They opened the car and ransacked the car. They removed the car stereo and they returned the key saying that they are not taking the car.
Thereafter they instructed us to open the gate for them to go out, Another person now led me inside again to pick the gate keys. Then when I opened the gate for them, they went out of our compound and instructed me to lock our gate.
After they went out, we heard the sound of gunshot, but we were all inside the house not knowing what was happening. Thereafter we heard another knock on our gate. Then we asked who they were and they identified themselves as the landlords in the area. That it was the neighborhood securities and the Robbers that exchanged gun shots.
Thereafter we heard that the landlords had called the police. Then not long after the policemen arrived, The police men then took one of the security men and they went in pursuit of the robbers.
By the time the police and the security men returned they come back with the 1st accused

person. They asked the first accused if this was where they came to rob and he said no. The police then asked if I can identify my properties and I said yes.
The police men asked the 1st accused to open the bag in his and when he opened it, I saw my clothes and some of my children’s clothing’s, our hand set and money in the bag. The police then asked him again if it was our house that they robbed and he said yes. Then the police took him away and said in the morning we should go to Adatan police station.
On the following morning on getting to Adatan Police Station, myself and my husband, we were told to write our statement.
They asked if I can still identify the culprits if I saw any of them and I said yes.
Then I was taken to where some people who were… sat down and I was told to identify the accused person. Then I identified the 1st accused among the lot sitting down. Then one was later transferred to the State C.I.D. Eleweran. Thereafter, I was called up from Eleweran to come and identify the accused persons and some others whom they had arrested.
Then I went to the State C.I.D. Eleweran, where I was able to identify the 2nd

accused who has one bad eye, Then I was told to make another statement which I did. Thereafter my husband died on the 3rd of January 2007. Then on the day of the burial the police brought the 2nd accused person to our house and when I told them that we were doing the burial of my husband who had died; they went back with the 2nd accused. Thereafter I was told to appear in Court. AII the items that were recovered were later returned to us by the police. The police then gave me a bond in exchange for the items released to us. If I sees the bond, I can identify it. Yes this is the bond given to me by the police in exchange of the received items. I can see my signature on it.
Mrs. Oguntola: I seeks to tender the bond as exhibit.
Mrs. Oniyide: No objection
Mr. Diyan: No objection.
Court: The Bond to produce Exhibit dated 21/8/06 is admitted as Exhibit A.
When the accused person came to our house with the other robbers they did not cover their faces.
Cross-Examination by Mrs. Oliyide.
No, I had never known the 1st accused prior to the incident. I cannot say the exact amount that was stolen from our house on that day.
No the 1st

and 2nd accused person were not arrested at our house. Yes, the police brought back the 1st accused to our house. The robbery started about 1.30a.m the robbers spent about 1 hour in our house.
The 1st accused was brought back to our house by the police at about 4.am. No, it is not an innocent person that so brought back to our house by the police because I had seen him very well because our generator was on. No, the police did not call me to come and identify the 1st accused among other suspects.
The fence accused persons on the day of the incident cut the barbed wire on the fence and jumped in from there. Then they cut the burglary proof in the window and came in from when the 1st door to our sitting room was broken into before they got to the room door.
No, when they were burgling and sneaking in nobody heard due to the sound of the generator that was on. No, I did not know the 2nd accused person to the incident.
No I do not know from when the 2d accused was arrested.
No, the 2nd accused was not alone when I identify him. It was among a lot other suspects sitting down. I was able to identify the 2nd accused because the light was on,

and in fact he was the one who told me to go and wake up my mother in law, I saw his eyes very well and I can identify him by the one bad eye that he had. Yes, I identify him very well by the defective eye because I saw him very well and I spoke directly with him. No, he is not an innocent person. I saw the 2nd accused face to face.”

In his evaluation of the case against 2nd accused who is the appellant in this appeal the trial Judge said of the appellant as 2nd accused thus:
“As for the 2nd accused person, the PW1 though admitted that she did not know from where the 2nd accused was arrested. She however stated that the 2nd accused was not alone when she identified him, but was among a lot of other suspects sitting down. She also said that she was able to identify the 2nd accused because the light was on, when she was being robbed and that it was the 2nd accused who told her to go and wake her mother in law up and that she saw his eyes very well and can identify him by the one bad eye that he had.
Under cross examination, the PW1 said:
“Yes, I identifies him very well by the defective eye and because I saw him very well and I spoke directly

with him. No, he is not an innocent person.
I saw the 2nd accused face to face.”
In the statement of the 2nd accused Exh GI he admitted the commission of the offence of armed robbery, and this is confirmed by the testimony of the PW1, I do uphold the submission of the learned DDPP that notwithstanding that the 2nd accused resiled from his statement in Court, Exhibits G.GI. and 1, I clearly confirms his involvement in the robbery at the house of the P.w1 what is even more, the testimony of the PW8 showed that it was the 2nd accused person who led the Police to Ibara prisons where the 1st accused was detained, this is confirmed by Exhibit 11.”

Now, to the issues raised about identification, the evidence of PW1 was such that she was in the house with 2nd accused i.e. appellant and the 1st accused and another. PW1 specifically narrated things done by the 2nd accused appellant including leading 2nd accused/appellant to the room of her mother in law and handing over the key of their car to 2nd accused/appellant at his request. The learned trial judge who had the singular opportunity of seeing her and assessing her credibility and credulity accepted her

evidence especially when marched against the confessional statement in Exhibit G, G1, which the trial Judge considers corroborated by the evidence of PW1 reproduced above.

Considering the evidence of PW1 and the length of time she spent with 2nd accused/appellant in their (PW1) house and the interactions between them. It cannot be said that PW1 needed any form of aid or need in identifying the 2nd accused. There was no need for identification. The one carried out by the police was in my respectful view unnecessary in so far as the 2nd accused was concerned.

As regards the confessional statements Exhibits G and G1, which appellants counsel tried to discredit because a sworn interpreted was not called, it was demonstrated in Court that PW8 the investigating police officer understood Yoruba, very well and in that capacity recorded the statement at the 2nd accused in Yoruba and interpreted same in English. Although he the police officer is from Anambra State, is there any presumption that non Yoruba Nigerians do not understand Yoruba. No! There is no such presumption. In this case, the Policeman even understood Yoruba proverbs. In this regards, it

is bad practice to just cite good legal authorities without relating such case Law to the facts of the case at hand. Learned counsel should take note.

It was also alleged that the trial Judge should have applied the same standards of evaluation of evidence applied in the case of 3rd accused to the case of the appellant as they were charged and trial together. In this point, the case at Idiok Vs. The State (supra) was cited that to the effect where:
“a co-accused is discharged and acquitted, it does not mean that the accused person as a matter of course too will be discharged and acquitted. A Court will only do so if the evidence in exculpation of the two is the same…it depends entirely on the facts of the case before the Court.”
Is very appropriate and instructive and it has not been shown that such exculpatory evidence is common to the appellant and the 3rd accused.

The confessional statements of the appellant as 2nd accused Exhibit G and G1 runs in to several pages. Upon being resiled, the trial Court conducted a trial within trial and found the statement to have been made voluntarily. It was endorsed by appellant himself. It was largely corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and the

statement of 1st accused. The trial Court acted on the confessions supported by the evidence of PW1 as corroboration. It has not been demonstrated that the trial Court was misconceived on this point.

The learned trial Judge, on the evidence, was in no doubt as to the culpability of the 2nd accused in the offences wherewith he was charged and was right in his findings sentence and conviction of the 2nd accused Adekunle Olatunji. The said Adekunle Olatunji is the appellant in this appeal.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the appeal of the appellant has not merit and is accordingly dismissed.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment of my learned brother Okoronkwo, JCA. I agree that this appeal lacks merit and I too would dismiss it and abide by all the consequential orders of my learned brother.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I read before now, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Okoronkwo, JCA. Having so read, I agree that the appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

Appearances

A. A. Malik Esq. with him, M. O. Akinsanya, Esq.For Appellant

AND

F. E. Bolarinwa Adebowale (Mrs.) (ACSC Ministry of Justice, Ogun State)For Respondent