LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

BAKO v. STATE (2022)

BAKO v. STATE

(2022)LCN/16038(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, May 30, 2022

CA/G/118C/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ibrahim Shata Bdliya Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

AHMED BAKO APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED FOR A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BE ATTACHED EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT TO CONVICT

A confessional statement is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is the best evidence in the criminal jurisprudence. For a confessional statement to be attached evidential weight to convict, there are certain requirements to be satisfied, which are:
i. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it was true?

ii. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested?
iii. Is the confession possible?
iv. Was the accused person seized of the opportunity to commit the offence?
v. Is it consistent with other facts?

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF FORGED DOCUMENT

I agree with both learned counsel that, to prove the commission of the offence of being in possession of forged documents, punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, Borno State, the following ingredients must be proved by cogent and credible evidence, they are thus:
1. That the document was forged
2. That it was in the possession of the accused
3. That he held its possession knowing it to be forged and knowing that it would be used fraudulently or dishonestly as a genuine document
4. That the document was one described in Section 362 and 363 of the Penal Code.”PER IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.

PRINCIPLE GOVERNING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The law is trite, a confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide of the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone, Court can convict. Where there are facts and circumstance outside the confession which made it probable that the confession is true, the Court can convict upon the confession and those additional facts and circumstances.
See OLABODE VS STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (PT. 1152) PAGE 254 at 273, OGOALA VS STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) page 509, OBIASA VS QUEEN (1962) 2 SCNLR PAGE 402 AND OKABICHI VS. STATE (1975) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 71. In AKPA VS. STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) PAGE 72 AT 92, NIKI TOBI, JSC said:
“In law, where an accused person confesses to a crime, in the absence of an eye witness, he can be convicted on his confession alone, once the confession is positive, direct and properly proved.”
See MILLA VS THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR (pt 11) 190 at page 95 paragraph C-D, the Supreme Court, per Tobi, JSC (of the blessed memory) stated the law thus:
“Confession in criminal procedure, like admission in civil procedure, is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence, borrowing the daily axiom, comes out from the mouth of the horse, who is the accused person. What better evidence than that? He knows or know what he did and he say or said it in Court. Is there need for any further proof? I think not.”
Tabai, JSC expressed same view in the case of Olabode vs. State (2009) 11 NWLR (pt. 1152) page 254 at 273 thus:
“it is settled law that a confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone the Court can convict.”
In Yusuf v. The State (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 318) p. 1486, the Apex Court held that:
“Confession in criminal procedure is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of the accused person. It is stronger that the evidence of eye witnesses because the evidence comes out of the mouth of the accused. He knows or knew what he did and he say or said it. There is need for any further proof.” – PER IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Borno State (hereinafter referred as the lower Court) in Charge No. BOHC/MG/CR/23/2019, delivered on the 17th day of June, 2021, by F. UMARU J.

The case of the prosecution (now respondent), is that, the management of the Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri, Borno State, reported to the Police that unknown persons were issuing fake statements of result, which were not issued by the College. Upon investigation by the Police the appellant and 3 others, were arrested for allegedly being in possession of fake statements of results as if it were issued by the said College of Education. The appellant was arraigned before the lower Court, convicted and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment and fined N500,000.00, and if in default of payment, to serve 2years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court on the 27th day of July, 2021, on 3 grounds of appeal, which are thus:
GROUND 1: the learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the appellant for being in possession of forged record when there was no legal basis of doing so thereby occasion a miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERRORS
a. No evidence led by the respondent to prove that Exhibits F5, F6, and F7 were Forged Record
b. The Appellant has explained how Exhibits F5, F6, and F7 came to his possession and was not discredited by the Respondent.
c. In law, the burden is on the respondent to establish that Exhibits F5, F6 and F7 are Forged record
GROUND 2: The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to consider the defence put forward by the appellant thereby occasion a miscarriage of Justice to the appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERRORS
a. In law a judge is bound to consider all issues put forward by all the parties.
b. Failure to consider issue put forward by a party is a denial of fair hearing.
c. Denial of fair hearing is a miscarriage of justice.
GROUNDS 3: The decision of the learned trial judge is unwarranted and not supported by credible evidence having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.

In the event of the appeal succeeding, the following reliefs, were sought to be granted.
1. An order allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment conviction and sentence by the lower Court, Discharge and Acquit the Appellant.
2. In the alternative; substitute the sentences with a mild fine

The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 2nd day of February, 2022, with the leave of the Court, same was deemed filed and served on the 10th day of February, 2022. On page 2 thereof, a sole issue for determination of the appeal was articulated as follows:
“Whether from the totally of the evidence adduced during trial, the Respondent has established that EXHIBIT F5, F6 and F7 are fake statements of result to warrant the conviction of the appellant? Ground 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal.”

The respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 2nd day of March, 2022. With leave of Court, same was deemed field and served on the 3rd day of same. A sole issue for determination of the appeal has been distilled out of the grounds of appeal on page 3 -4 thereof, which is, thus:
“whether from the totality of the evidence adduce by the respondent during trial, the respondent has established that EXHIBIT F5, F6 and F7 are fake/forged statement of Result to warrant the conviction of the appellant.” (Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal.

The law is trite, in the determination of an appeal, an appellate Court may adopt the issues formulated for determination of either or both of the parties or may reframe or restructure or formulate entirely different issues(s) for the just determination of the appeal in so far as they are related or based on the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal. To reinforce the preposition of the principles of law as enunciated supra, I refer to the case of CHABASAYA VS ANWASI (2010) 10 NWLR (PT. 1201) P. 163 at 181, wherein the Supreme Court espoused that an appellate Court can ignore some or all issues formulated in the briefs of argument and formulated its own issues the way it deems them to be material once they are distilled from the grounds of appeal. In P.S.H.S.M.B. V. GOSHWE (2013) 2 NWLR (PT. 1338) P. 383 at 399, the Supreme Court adumbrated that an appellate Court has an unfettered discretion to restructure or formulated issues for determination to meet the justice of the case. In others words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy for accuracy, clarity and brevity. See OKORO VS STATE (1988) 5 NWLR (PT 94) 255, LATUNDE V LAJINFI (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 108) 177, AWOJUGBAGBE LIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD VS CHINUKWE (1995) 5 NWLR (PT. 330) 379, OGUNBIYI VS ISHOLA (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 452) 12. Therefore, for clarity and precision, the issues contained in the appellant’s and the respondent’s briefs of argument are amalgamated and reframed to a sole issue as hereunder:
Whether, on the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the lower Court, Exhibits F5, F6 and F7 were in possession of the appellant, and have been proved to be fake and forged by him to warrant his conviction as charged (grounds 1, 2 and 3)

RESOLUTION OF SOLE ISSUE
On the commission of the offence of being in possession of forged documents punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, learned counsel to the appellant, G. Yunusa Esq, made elaborate submissions on pages 2 to 12 of the brief of argument, citing and relying on principles of law enunciated in a plethora of decisions of the superior Courts, to buttress his contention that, the prosecution did not adduce credible and or cogent evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellant, for committing the said offence, beyond reasonable doubt.

Specifically, learned counsel submitted that no credible evidence was adduced in proof of Exhibit F5, F6 and F7 to be fake statements of result of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education Maiduguri, as alleged by the prosecution. It is also submitted that no evidence was adduced linking the appellant with the forging of any document or being in possession of document which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits F5, F6 and F7.

Learned counsel also contended that the evidence of the appellant on how he came into possession of the documents found with him has not been controverted nor contradicted by the prosecution.

Submitting further, learned counsel adumbrated that, the learned judge of the lower Court only speculated and conjured when he arrived at the decision that the appellant committed the offence under Section 368 of the Penal Code, whereas there was no evidence to support same.

That, there was no cogent, evidence to support the decision of the lower Court, therefore, it is a perverse decision occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

In conclusion, learned counsel summarized his submissions as follows as contained on pages 11 to 12 of the appellant’s brief of argument:
“We respectfully urge your Lordship to set aside the judgment of the lower Court, discharge and acquit the appellant as the respondent has not established the offence charge against the Appellant as required by law base on the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence place before the lower Court that Exhibits F5, F6 and F7 are forged statements of results of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri
2. No evidence adduced that, the appellant intend to use the Exhibits fraudulently or dishonestly.
3. No evidence placed that, the appellant was the one who fraudulently made the Exhibits contrary to Section 362 and 363 of the Penal Code.

For the respondent, K. S. Lawan Esq., Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Borno State, made elaborate and extensive submissions on pages 4 to 17 of the brief of argument, citing and relying on principles of law espoused in a litany of decisions of the superior Courts, to buttress his contention that, cogent, credible and reliable evidence were adduced by the prosecution, proving the commission of the offence of being in possession of fake and or forge documents punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, Borno State.

Specifically, learned counsel did submit that the prosecution adduced credible evidence proving all the ingredients of the offence of being in possession of fake documents under Sections 362, 363 and punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code. The case of Duru vs FRN (2018) 12 NWLR pt 1632 p. 20 at 27 was cited and relied on to reinforce the adumbrated supra.

Furthermore, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Yusuf vs State (2019) LPELR 46945 (SC) P. 17-21 wherein it was held that a Court of law can convict an accused person for committing an offence on retracted confessional statement alone, that is without any corroborative evidence, provided all the conditionals for admissibility of same, have been satisfied. See also Hassan vs State (2012) 9 ACLR pt. 1 p. 17-18 and Shuaibu vs State (2013) 9 NWLR pt. 1358 at 107. This Court has been urged to resolve the sole issue against the appellant, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

The appellant (as the 3rd accused person) was arraigned before the lower Court for allegedly committing the offence of being in possession of forged record or statements of results punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, Borno State. I agree with both learned counsel that, to prove the commission of the offence of being in possession of forged documents, punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, Borno State, the following ingredients must be proved by cogent and credible evidence, they are thus:
1. That the document was forged
2. That it was in the possession of the accused
3. That he held its possession knowing it to be forged and knowing that it would be used fraudulently or dishonestly as a genuine document
4. That the document was one described in Section 362 and 363 of the Penal Code.

Did the prosecution adduce credible evidence establishing all the ingredients of the offence of being in possession of forged documents as contained in count 5 of the charge, which is thus:
“that you Ahmed Bako on or about the 24th of April, 2018 at Maiduguri within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court was found in possession of fake statements of results of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code.”

I have read through the proceedings of the lower Court, paying particular attention to the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution as recorded in the record book. I have also taken note of the evidence of the witnesses called by the appellant. The evidence of Pw2; Exhibits F5, F6 and F7 and the confessional statement made by the appellant, which was admitted without any objection by the appellant, is Exhibit ‘F’, Exhibit ‘D’ is the confessional statement made by Mohammed Ali Barma, the 4th accused person in the Charge before the lower Court.

In Exhibit I, the appellant as an accused person, volunteered his statement as follows:
“I asked him to wait for me at the post office area to collect the message from him, as I reaches the areas to collect the message he told me that they owed Alhaji Shattima N5,000, which I don’t have at the time, I told them I have N4,000 Naira with me which I gave it to 20 Suleiman Bukar (jakon) and the other boy to, what I saw with them is college statement of result. I collect the message, after collecting the message I was busy, time has not allowed me to take the message to him, a later after I just hear of his dead, after his demise I don’t know who to take the message to because is Colleges statement of result. I just kept it with guilty conscience.”

Mohammed Ali Barma, who was the 4th accused person also made his statement to the police, same was admitted in evidence, having not been objection to, as Exhibit ‘D’, which is thus:
“About a year ago one Suleiman Bukar Madiva ‘M’ along with one Ahmed Bako ‘M’ whom identified himself as lecturer with Kashim Ibrahim College of Education Maiduguri for selling of two statement of result when I head that he is a lecturer I was convinced that the statement of result are genuine. I sealed the two statements of result for them and they paid me N5,000.00 only.” The learned judge of the lower Court, when considering the evidential value of both Exhibits “D” and “I” held as recorded on page 118 of the record of appeal, thus:
“About a year ago one Suleiman Bukar Madiva ‘M’ along with one Ahmed Bako ‘M’ whom identified himself as lecturer with Kashim Ibrahim College of Education Maiduguri for selling of two statement of result when I head that he is a lecturer I was convinced that the statement of result are genuine. I sealed the two statements of result for them and they paid me N5,000.00 only.”

The learned judge of the lower Court, correctly stated the principles of law and I am in agreement with his conclusion that, the appellant had adopted the statement made by the 4th accused person. A confessional statement is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is the best evidence in the criminal jurisprudence. For a confessional statement to be attached evidential weight to convict, there are certain requirements to be satisfied, which are:
i. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it was true?

ii. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested?
iii. Is the confession possible?
iv. Was the accused person seized of the opportunity to commit the offence?
v. Is it consistent with other facts?

The contents of Exhibit ‘I’, the confessional statement by the appellant, has been corroborated by the testimonies of Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, Pw5 as well as Exhibit “D” the confessional statement of Mohammed Ali Barma, the 4th accused person before the lower Court. Exhibit I, is in tandem with the evidence of Pw2 and Exhibit ‘D’ the statement made by the 4th accused person. Exhibit I, is also corroborated by Exhibits F5, F6, and F7, as well as Exhibit 10. Exhibit ‘I’, is in tandem with the provisions of Section 28 of the Evidence Act, which provide thus:

“A confession is an admission made at a time by a person charged with the commission of a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”

The statement made by the appellant, Exhibit ‘I’ is an admission contemplated by Section 28 of the Evidence Act, which has been corroborated by the evidence of Pw2, Pw3, Pw4, Pw5 and Pw6 as well as Exhibit ‘D’, the confessional statement made by the 4th accused person which has been adopted by the appellant as earlier found in this judgment.

The law is trite, a confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide of the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone, Court can convict. Where there are facts and circumstance outside the confession which made it probable that the confession is true, the Court can convict upon the confession and those additional facts and circumstances.
See OLABODE VS STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (PT. 1152) PAGE 254 at 273, OGOALA VS STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) page 509, OBIASA VS QUEEN (1962) 2 SCNLR PAGE 402 AND OKABICHI VS. STATE (1975) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 71. In AKPA VS. STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) PAGE 72 AT 92, NIKI TOBI, JSC said:
“In law, where an accused person confesses to a crime, in the absence of an eye witness, he can be convicted on his confession alone, once the confession is positive, direct and properly proved.”
See MILLA VS THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR (pt 11) 190 at page 95 paragraph C-D, the Supreme Court, per Tobi, JSC (of the blessed memory) stated the law thus:
“Confession in criminal procedure, like admission in civil procedure, is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence, borrowing the daily axiom, comes out from the mouth of the horse, who is the accused person. What better evidence than that? He knows or know what he did and he say or said it in Court. Is there need for any further proof? I think not.”
Tabai, JSC expressed same view in the case of Olabode vs. State (2009) 11 NWLR (pt. 1152) page 254 at 273 thus:
“it is settled law that a confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone the Court can convict.”
In Yusuf v. The State (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 318) p. 1486, the Apex Court held that:
“Confession in criminal procedure is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of the accused person. It is stronger that the evidence of eye witnesses because the evidence comes out of the mouth of the accused. He knows or knew what he did and he say or said it. There is need for any further proof.”

The prosecution, by the confessional statement of the appellant in Exhibit I, corroborated by the evidence of Pw1, Pw6, to prove the first ingredient of the offence of being in possession of fake documents, which are the statements of result of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri, Borno State.

Regarding the 2nd ingredient, the evidence of Pw2 and Pw6 are that Exhibits F5, F6, F7 were found in possession of the appellant. The appellant in his statement to the Police, Exhibit I, did admit that he handed over the said document to Pw2 and Pw6. The appellant was found in possession of blank statements of results of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri. They were sealed without names, admission number, year of certification, subject grade and signature of the Registrar of the College, these clearly revealed that the appellant held Exhibits F5, F6 and F7 knowing them to be fake or forged and would be used dishonestly and or fraudulently as genuine documents. Exhibits F5, F6, F7 are within the provisions of Sections 362 and 363 of the Penal Code, Borno State.

I had earlier found and held that on the ingredients of the offence being in possession of fake documents, which are Exhibits F5, F6 and F7, qualify as the type of documents envisaged by Sections 362 and 363 of the Penal Code, Borno State. The fact that the fake documents were sealed indicates that they were dishonestly and fraudulently made, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The learned judge of the lower Court was right when he held as recorded on pages 122 to 123 of the record of appeal that:
“like I earlier indicated, the fact that blank statements of result are purportedly sealed shows that they were dishonestly and fraudulently made with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. I hold that the last ingredient is proved and further hold that the prosecution has proved the offence of possession of forged against the 3rd accused person.”

I am in complete agreement with the learned judge of the lower Court. By the evidence of Pw1 to Pw6, Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘I’ as well as Exhibits F5, F6 and F7, the prosecution adduced cogent and credible evidence establishing the commission of t he offence of being in possession of fake statements of results of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri, punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code, Borno State.
In the end result, I hereby resolve the sole issue against the appellant. The appeal is therefore unmeritorious. Same is dismissed by me. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 17th of June, 2021, in Charge No. BOHC/MG/CR/23/2019 is hereby affirmed.

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Ibrahim Shata Bdliya, J.C.A.

The Appellant was charged, along with three others, for the offences of conspiracy, forgery and being in possession of fake statements of results punishable under Sections 97, 364, 367 and 368 of the Penal Code Law. In particular, the Appellant (as 3rd accused person) was charged under count five for being in possession of fake statements of results punishable under Section 368 of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to trial. To prove the charge, the prosecution adduced evidence through nine witnesses and several documents, while the Appellant and his co-accused persons also adduced evidence in their defence. At the close of trial, the Appellant was convicted of the offence charged. Aggrieved he filed this appeal, arguing that the Respondent failed to prove the offence against him.

An in-depth analysis has been made of the nature and character of the evidence placed before the trial Court by the Respondent. Briefly put, the prosecution adduced both direct or eyewitness evidence through PW1 and PW2, as well as circumstantial evidence through PW4 to PW6; in addition to relying on the confessional statement of the Appellant, Exhibit I, to establish the offence charged against the Appellant.

Of particular significance is the eyewitness evidence of PW2, the Registrar of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education (the complainant to the Police). From the evidence of PW2 to PW6, the Appellant was found in possession Exhibits F5, F6 and F7. By Exhibit I, the confessional statement, the Appellant admitted that he handed over the documents to PW2 and PW6. The documents found in his possession were blank statements of results of Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri which were sealed, but did not contain any names, admission numbers, year of certification, subject, grade and signature of the Registrar of the College. This clearly imputed knowledge to the Appellant that the documents were false and were intended to be used dishonestly or fraudulently, as genuine statements of results.

Also, the confessional statement of the Appellant was direct and unequivocal and was fully corroborated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, it was capable of being acted upon by the trial Court to convict the Appellant, as it rightly did. Therein, the Appellant admitted that he was in possession of fake Statements of results of the Kashim Ibrahim College of Education, Maiduguri. In addition, he adopted the confessional statement of his co-accused, Suleiman Bukar Madiva, who also confessed that he (Suleiman) sealed the fake result sheets for the Appellant who had described himself as a Lecturer with the College.

It is now well settled that once a confessional statement is proved to have been made voluntarily, as in the instant case, and it is direct, positive, unequivocal and suggestive of an admission of guilt by the accused person, it is sufficient to ground a conviction. It has always been the position of Courts that a confessional statement, once properly proved, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Indeed, it is the strongest evidence of guilt against an accused person because, it comes, as it were, from the horse’s mouth. See Samuel V COP (2021) LPELR-56173 (CA), Abdul V State (2021) LPELR-54821(CA) 42, A-E, Mindi V State (2020) LPELR-52897(SC) 12-14, B-A, Asa V State (2020) LPELR-49937(CA) 12, A-C, Awosika V State (2018) LPELR-44351(SC) 63-64, C-A, Akpa V. State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 72, 92 and  Milla V. State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 11) 190.

Thus, the trial Court, having been presented with both direct evidence and the confessional statement, Exhibit I, rightfully convicted the Appellant, the ingredients of the offence charged having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I see no reason to overturn the decision of the trial Court.

It is for this reason and the detailed reasons in the lead judgment that I find no merit in the appeal. I dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders.

EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: My learned brother, I. S. BDLIYA, JCA has afforded me the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached therein. I also dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit.

Appearances:

G. YUNUSA, ESQ., with him, A. A. BIU, ESQ., A. KUMBO, ESQ., A. IBRAHIM, ESQ. and A. HARUNA, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

K. S. LAWAN, ESQ. (HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, BORNO STATE), A. H. IZGE (AG. PS/SG), S. A. IDRISSA (DPP), A. S. KAIGAMA (DDPP), F.H. MOHAMMED (PSC), A. F. MSHELIA (SSC), A. BUBA (SSC), A.F. MSHELIA (SSC), H. G. MUSTAPHA (SSC), I. MOHAMMED, (SC) and L. IBRAHIM (SC) For Respondent(s)