CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI v. STATE
(2018)LCN/11840(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 5th day of July, 2018
CA/OW/268C/2016
RATIO
EVIDENCE: CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“What is a confessional statement and when is it admissible? OKORO JSC in NKIE V FRN (2014) 13 NWLR (PT. 1424) P. 305 explained it thus:
”A Confession or Confessional Statement has been defined in several cases by this Court as an admission made by an accused person stating or suggesting that he committed the crime which is the object of the charge preferred against him.
A confessional statement according to Fabiyi JSC in FABIYI V STATE (2015) LPELR ? 24834 (S.C.) constitutes a clear and cogent proof of an act of the accused person who made it. There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own confession.”” PER TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI Appellant(s)
AND
STATE Respondent(s)
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is the judgment in respect of the appeal lodged by the Appellant against the decision of Imo State High Court delivered on 23/3/2016. The Appellant was the 1st accused at the lower court in charge No. HON/75C/2011.
The Appellant was arraigned on a 5 count charge which read as follows:
COUNT I
That you CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI, IFEANYI ARIMAHA, CHINEDU OSUOHA, CHINMECHEFULAM ONWUSORONYE, NWADIUTO NWAGUMA, CHIMEZIE NJOKU and CATHERINE NWAKUMA on the 16th day of January, 2011 at Achi Mbieri, in the Mbaitoli Magisterial District, did conspire with one another to commit the offence of hostage taking, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Imo State Prohibition of Hostage Taking and Related Offences, Law No.4 of 2009.
COUNT II
That you CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI, IFEANYI ARIMAHA, CHINEDU OSUOHA, CHINMECHEFULAM ONWUSORONYE, NWADIUTO NWAGUMA, CHEMEZIE NJOKU and CATHERINE NWAKUMA on the same date and place, in the aforesaid Magistrate District, did take one Josephine Acholonu F, (now late) hostage, with the intent to demand ransom from members of her family, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Imo State Prohibition of Hostage Taking and Related Offences Law No.4 of 2009.
COUNT III
That you CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI, IFEANYI ARIMAHA, CHINEDU OSUOHA, CHINMECHEFULAM ONWUSORONYE, NWADIUTO NWAGUMA, CHIMEZIE NJOKU and CATHERINE NWAKUMA on the same date and place, on the aforesaid Magisterial District, did murder one Josephine Acholonu F, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 319(I) of the Criminal Code, Cap C38 of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 as applicable to Imo State.
COUNT IV
That you CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI, IFEANYI ARIMAHA, CHINEDU OSUOHA, CHIN, ECHEFULAM ONWUSORONYE, NWADIUTO NWAGUMA, CHEMEAZIE NJOKU and CATHERINE NWAKUNA on the same date and place, in the aforesaid Magisterial District, did conspire with one another to commit felony to wit; Armed Robbery, and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 403A and punishable under Section 403(A) OF THE Criminal Code, Cap C38 of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 as applicable to Imo State.
COUNT V
That you CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI and CHINEDU OSUOHA on the same date and place in the aforesaid Magisterial District while armed with a locally made gun (pistol) robbed one Mary Acholonu F, of the sum of N130,000.00 (One hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira) cash and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 402(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap C38 of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 as applicable to Imo State.
After hearing the prosecution witnesses on the one hand and the defence the learned trial Judge entered judgment inter alia convicting the appellant as follows:
”In respect of 1st Accused Prosecution was able to prove their case against him through his confessional statement which is positive and direct. See GWANGWAN V. STATE (2011) LPELR 4223 (CA), through Circumstantial Evidence (when he went to the bank to collect money from the sister of P.W.2) and by evidence of an eye witness, the P.W.1. who had one on one encounter with him. I am satisfied that 1st Accused did all he admitted doing in Exhibit ‘H’ The weak defence of a failed visa deal he tried to raise could not stand on its wobbly feet. His parents and sister who knew about it were not called to testify, why’ Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act operates against 1st Accused in the regard. I have no iota of doubt that 1st Accused is guilty as charged.”
Dissatisfied with the above decision, the appellant filed Notice and Grounds of Appeal containing 3 grounds of appeal.
The grounds of appeal read as follows:
GROUND ONE
The learned Trial Judge erred in law when he relied on the alleged confessional statement (EXHIBIT ‘H’) of the Appellant to convict the Appellant, even when its admission did not pass the test of admissibility.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The Appellant’s evidence was that the statement was not voluntarily obtained from him as he was tortured before he signed the statement.
b. The trial Court did not make any findings of facts whether or not the Appellant who involuntarily signed Exhibit ‘H’ was tortured before he signed same.
c. The trial Court ought not to have admitted Exhibit ‘H’ and having admitted it, no weight whatsoever should have been attached to it.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when he relied on the contents of Exhibit ?H? the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant solely to convict the appellant.
PARTILCULARS OF ERROR
a. Admission of a statement in evidence whether confessional or otherwise is to ascertain its voluntariness and not to ascertain the truth contained therein.
b. The trial Court solely relied on the fact that Exhibit ‘H’ has been admitted in evidence and no more to convict the Appellant without looking at its overall contents.
c. Statement which qualifies as a confession does not include that in which the accused narrated certain facts of the incident but made no unequivocal admission that it was he who killed the deceased.
d. There was no evidence whether in the alleged confessional statement (Exhibit ‘H’) or in evidence at the trial that it was the appellant who killed the deceased.
e. There was no evidence of what caused the death of the deceased as there was no autopsy carried out on the body of the deceased. There was no medical evidence by any doctor to confirm the cause of death.
GROUND THREE
The learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held thus ?Prosecution has proved it case against 1st Accused beyond reasonable doubt; I hereby find him guilty as charged and convict him accordingly.?
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. There was no direct evidence whether oral or circumstantial that the Appellant took hostage of the deceased on 16th January, 2011 or on any other date.
b. The 1st Accused/Appellant never admitted in Exhibit ‘H’ that he participated in the kidnap of the deceased on 16th January 2011.
c. The only evidence on record was the appellant’s meeting with 3rd Accused (Chinedu Osuoha) on 19th January, 2011 when he collected money on his behalf from one woman he claimed to be his sugar mummy.
d. At no time did the appellant admit that he went to the house the deceased with the other accused persons on 16th January, 2011.
e. Therefore, the premise or the basis upon which the Trial Court found the appellant guilty did not arise from the contents of Exhibit ‘H’
f. The doubts created in Exhibit ‘H’ ought to have been discharged in favour of the Appellant.
After transmission of record of appeal to this Court parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 8/6/2017. It was settled by his counsel I. P. Annaba ESQ.
Learned counsel to the Appellant formulated two issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether the trial Court was right when he relied solely on the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ to convict the Appellant even when the said document did not pass the test of voluntariness and admissibility. (distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal).
2. Whether in the light of the evidence before the Court inclusive of the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant (distilled from ground 3 of the grounds of appeal)
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
1. Whether the trial Court was right when he relied solely on the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ to convict the Appellant even when the said document did not pass the test of voluntaries and admissibility (distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal).
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the trial Court was in grave error when it admitted Exhibit ?H? in his ruling and that at the trial within trial, the Appellant clearly stated that he did not make the statement contained in Exhibit ‘H’ voluntarily also under cross-examination he maintained his position that he did not voluntarily make Exhibit ‘H’ (see pages 188-190, 180 lines 2 of the records).
He submitted that there was no basis or any empirical evidence to ascertain how the trial Court arrived at that conclusion for admitting the said Exhibit ‘H’ when the trial Court held that ‘I was satisfied that the 1st accused made the statement’ and how the trial Court convincingly came to such satisfaction was not at all shown. (see page 189 of the records)
Learned counsel to the Appellant contended that the Appellant stated clearly that he did not write the statement in Exhibit ‘H’ but that he signed it under drones and that the trial Court failed at least to make any findings of fact whether or not it was the Appellant who involuntarily signed Exhibit ‘H’ recognized the content of what he signed and whether or not he was literate. In fact, there was no evidence before the Court that the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ were read over to the Appellant by the recorder before signing same (see page 180 of the record).
He submitted that Exhibit ‘H’ ought not to have been admitted based on the evidence before the Court as a confessional statement. He relied on the case of OKONKWO v. STATE (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 544) 142.
Learned counsel to the Appellant further submitted that the trial Court had a duty to look into the circumstance under which Exhibit ?H? was made before it was admitted in evidence that the grounds varied from torture, inaccuracies, forged signature and misrepresentation and that all these ought to be investigated and ascertained before the admission could be relied upon. He relied on the case of OGOALA v. STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) 509 at 534.
He contended that assuming without conceding that Exhibit ‘H’ was rightly admitted, could it be said that the contents therein sufficiently proved that Appellant killed the deceased and/or took her Hostage, that the answer was obviously in the negative in that there was nothing in Exhibit ‘H’ that should or clearly stated that Appellant killed the deceased.
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that statements which qualified as a confession did not include that in which the accused narrated certain facts of the incident but made no unequivocal admission that it was he who killed the deceased. He relied on the case of STATE v. ENABOSI (1966) 2 ALL NLR 166 & DANIELS v. STATE (1991) & NWLR (PT. 212) 715 (see pages 17-20 particularly at subparagraph 12, 351 and 354 of the records).
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that Exhibit ‘H’ was not positive and direct as to link the Appellant to be the killer of the deceased and that the law was that when an accused was the only eye witness that testified or made a statement in relation to the circumstances leading to the death of a person that the prosecution alleged that he killed, a Court general had to take or consider the evidence or matters contained in the statement as they arose without engaging in any speculation on any matters in respect of which there was no other evidence before it. He relied on the case of ONWE v. STATE (1975) 11 SC; KIM v. STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) 622.
He finally submitted that the Ipse dixit of the statement (Exhibit H) was not conclusive proof that a case of kidnapping or Hostage taking was established at the trial Court because the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ had to compliment the evidence of prosecution witnesses since police investigation report showed clearly that there was no kidnap of the deceased but rather someone merely pretended to be the deceased on phone in order to extort money from the children of the deceased (see page 20(12) of the record).
Learned counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
ISSUE NUMBER: TWO
Whether in the light of the evidence before the Court inclusive of the contents of Exhibit ?H?, the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant (distilled from ground 3 of the grounds of appeal).
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the three ingredients of the offence must co-exist for there to be a conviction, that in the instant case, the only reason for convicting the Appellant was that he made a confessional statement (Exhibit H) upon which the trial Court based his conviction and sentencing. He relied on the case of STATE v. ENABOSI (SUPRA) & DANIELS v. STATE (SUPRA). (see also Section 4 of the Imo State Prohibition of Hostage taking and Related offences Law No. 4 of 2009) (also see page 353 of the records).
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that it was the law that admission of a statement in evidence at trial within trial whether confessional or otherwise was to ascertain whether it was voluntarily made and not to ascertain the truth contained therein and that voluntaries was a test for admissibility only and not of the truth of the contents of the statement. He relied on the case of DAWA v. STATE (1980) 12 NSCC 334 and 346.
He further submitted that the premise or basis upon which the trial Court found the Appellant guilty did not arise from the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ was placed side by side with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court ought to have resolved that doubts created in favour of the Appellant.
Learned counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to resolve these issues in favour of the Appellant and allow this instant appeal.
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
The Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 19/1/2018. It was settled by his counsel K. A. LEWEANYA ESQ. (Assistant Chief State counsel, Dept of Public Prosecution, Ministry of justice, Owerri).
Learned counsel to the Respondent formulated two issues for determination which were akin to the issues formulated by the Appellant’s counsel, to wit:
1. Whether the trial Court solely relied on the contents of Exhibit ‘H’ to convict the Appellant and whether Exhibit ‘H’ Appellant’s statement passed the test of voluntariness and admissibility (distilled from ground 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal)
2. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced, trial Court was right to hold that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (distilled from ground 3 of the grounds of appeal)
ISSUE NUMBER: ONE
Whether the trial Court solely relied on the contents Exhibit ‘H’ to convict the Appellant and whether Exhibit ‘H’ Appellant’s statement passed the test of voluntariness and admissibility (distilled from ground 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal).
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the trial Court did not solely rely on the content of Exhibit ‘H’ to convict the Appellant but considered the entire evidence led before arising at its final verdict, also that the guilt of an accused could be proved by (a) Confessional Statement of the accused (b) Circumstantial evidence and (c) Evidence of an eye witness to the incident. He relied on the case of OGEDENGBE v. THE STATE (2015) VOL. 240 LRCN Page 152.
He further submitted that the prosecution proved not just one out of the three listed ingredients above but the three to prove the case against the Appellant and that the trial Court took time to analyze and evaluate the entire evidence of the principal witnesses and the confessional statement which the trial Court found it to be positive and direct. (see pages 354-355; 28, 121-124; 150-152 of the records)
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that Exhibit ‘H’ Appellant’s statement passed the test of voluntariness and admissibility and that is was the law that a conviction might be based solely on a confessional statement once the confessional was direct to the issue, positive and unequivocal. He relied on the case of ABDULLAHI & ORS v. THE STATE (2013) 10 SCM 1 AT 17 RH; LASISI v. STATE (2013) 6 SCM 98 AT 99; DOGO v. STATE (2013) 6 SCM 46 AT 48 & SECTION 28 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011.
He submitted further that an accused person could be convicted on the confession made by him once it was properly proved and admitted in evidence. He relied on OGOALA v. STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175); EGBOGHONOME v. STATE (2001) 2 A CLR PG 268. SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011.
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s statement was subjected to a test of voluntariness during the trial within trial before it was admitted as exhibit and that the law was trite that where the admissibility of a statement was challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, it was incumbent on the Judge to all upon the prosecution to establish that it was voluntarily made by conducting a trial within trial. He relied on the case ofOGOALA v. STATE (SUPRA).
He further submitted that a confession was relevant when it established one or all the elements of the crime charged and identified the person who committed the offence, hence the trial Court found as a fact that Exhibit ‘H’ tallied with evidence of PW1 and other prosecution witnesses. He relied on the case of OLATUNBOSUN v. STATE (2013) 12 (PT 3) SCM 961.
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that contrary to the Appellant’s counsel contention on the issues raised that the trial Court did not give reason on how the trial Court arrived at the admissibility of the statement, the trial Court was not bound to give reasons on how the Court arrived at the decision but what was important was whether the decision was right and not whether the reasons were right. He relied on the case of ALLIED BANK OF NIGERIA LTD v. AKUBUEZE (1997) 6 NWLR PT. 509, 374.
He further submitted that the Appellant was charged with the offence of Hostage taking and not murder so the issue of autopsy was not very necessary and it did not jeopardize the case of the prosecution as against the contention of the Appellant’s counsel on the cause of death and that autopsy was not carried out on the body of the deceased victim.
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the finding of the trial Court with regards to network provider and autopsy related only to 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th accused persons and not the Appellant (see page 351 of the record).
Learned counsel to the Respondent urged this Court to resolve this issue n favour of the Respondent.
ISSUE NUMBER: TWO
Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced the trial Court was right to hold that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the trial Court was right to hold that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and from the totality of evidence led it was not in doubt that one Mrs. Josephine Achilonu was actually kidnapped and murder in her family compound on Sunday 16th day of January, 2011 at Achi Mbier after she had returned from her Sunday Mass (see Exhibit ‘H’ at page 384-395; Exhibit ‘D’ at page 368-369 Exhibit F at page 379, Exhibit G at page 380-381 of the records).
He submitted that it was a well established fact the reason was demanded and paid and that the reason was demanded by threat which was received by the Appellant and the Appellant and his cohort actually planned and executed this criminal act against the deceased victim as charged. (see pages 25-28; 384, 26, 352, 353, 354 and 355 of the record).
Learned counsel to the Respondent finally submitted that proof beyond reasonable doubt meant the establishment of the ingredients of the offence charged in tandem with the dictates of Section 138 of the Evidence Act and it was not proof beyond an iota of doubt, the charge was said to be proved where the essential ingredients of the offence were established by the prosecution. He relied on the case of OLUSINA AJAYI v. STATE (2013) 3 SCM 1 at 9.
Learned counsel to the Respondent urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and dismiss this instant appeal.
I have deeply considered the issues formulated on either side by learned counsel for the parties. I shall adopt the two issues donated by learned appellant’s counsel for the determination of this appeal as I consider them to be wide and apt enough for its first determination.
ISSUE NO. ONE
Whether the trial Court was right when he relied solely on the contents of Exhibit H to convict the Appellant even when the said document did not pass the test of voluntariness and admissibility.
The learned trial Judge rested his decision on three pedestals namely;
(i) The confessional statement of the accused
(ii) Circumstantial evidence (when he went to the bank to collect money from the sister of PW2) and
(iii) By evidence of an eye witness to PW who had one on one encounter with him.
This issues raises a question as to the reliability of Exhibit H ? the confessional statement of the accused.
(a) Is Exhibit H a confessional statement?
(b) Was it properly admitted as exhibit?
(c) Was the lower Court right to have relied on it as well as on other points?
What is a confessional statement and when is it admissible? OKORO JSC in NKIE V FRN (2014) 13 NWLR (PT. 1424) P. 305 explained it thus:
”A Confession or Confessional Statement has been defined in several cases by this Court as an admission made by an accused person stating or suggesting that he committed the crime which is the object of the charge preferred against him.
A confessional statement according to Fabiyi JSC in FABIYI V STATE (2015) LPELR ? 24834 (S.C.) constitutes a clear and cogent proof of an act of the accused person who made it. There is no evidence stronger than a person?s own confession.”
Where however the admissibility of the confessional statement is challenged on the ground that it was not voluntarily made then the Court will call upon the prosecution to establish the voluntariness of the statement by conducting a trial within trial. See KOLAWOLE V STATE (2015) LPELR 24400 (S.C.) PAUL ASHAKE V THE STATE (1968) 2 ALL NLR 198, OGOALA V THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) 509, R v OMOKARO 2 WACA 146.
A trial within trial is done to prove the voluntariness or otherwise of the making of the confessional statement.
The trial Judge watches the respective demeanor of the prosecution witnesses and that of the accused and his witnesses and then concludes after assessing the evidence adduced, on the voluntariness or otherwise of the statement. He does not need to write a long ruling at this stage.
The learned trial Judge in the instant appeal conducted a trial within trial assessed the demeanour of the witnesses who gave evidence at the trial within trial and then concluded by stating that he was satisfied that the confessional statement was voluntarily made. To my mind the conduct of the trial within trial and the conclusion of the learned trial Judge were unimpeachable. I must add that I have gone through the contents of Exhibit H and I am convinced it is a confessional statement. The accused (now appellant) made a clean breast of the whole show in the said statement.
I am therefore of the respectful view that the lower Court was right to have relied upon it in convicting the Appellant.
ISSUE TWO
Whether in the light of the evidence before the Court inclusive of the contents of Exhibit H the trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant.
In resolving this issue, I have borne in mind that the decision of a Court of trial on facts is presumed to be correct unless the appellant proves otherwise See WILLIAMS V JOHNSON (1937) 2 WACA 253 at 254, OGBU & ANOR V STATE (2007) 3 FWLR PART 377 at 4189; VAB PETROLEUM INC V MOMAH (2013) 14 NWLR PT 1374 P. 284.
The learned trial Judge made the following findings of facts;
(1) The appellant made a confessional statement which was positive and direct.
(2) PW1’s evidence that the accused/appellant between 12 noon to 3 pm; unmasked came to her with a gun collected the (ransom money) of N130,000.00 from her and called it chicken feed. This was believed by the learned trial judge who saw and heard he witnesses.
(3) Accused walked into the trap set for him after initially escaping from police custody. This led to his final arrest.
(4) The accused became a whistle blower on the other culprits because he did not receive a fair share of the ransom. He felt cheated.
(5) The deceased died in the hands of the kidnappers during the execution of the offencee
(6) The accused did all he admitted doing in Exhibit H.
What then is the content of Exhibit H? It reads thus:
STATEMENT OF 1ST ACCUSED – CHIMEZIE ONUEKWUSI
NAME: Chimezie Onuekwusi
Address: Nsokpo Ogbaku, Mbaitoli L.G.A
Occupation: Electrician
Religion: Christianity
Nationality/Tribe: Nigeria/Ibo
Sex/Age: Male/23 years
Date: 01/03/2011
I, Chimezie Onuekwusi, having been duly cautioned in English Language that I am not obliged to say anything in answer to this charge unless I wish to do so but whatever I say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence at the Law Court.
Signed: Chimezie Onuekwusi
Date: 01/03/2011
I am a native of Umuonyeali Mbieri in Mbaitoli L. G. A. of Imo State. I know one Mrs. Josephine Acholonu now late. I know Patrick Acholonu ‘m’ also known as ‘Pona’, he is from Achi Mbeiri in Mbaitoli L. G. A. of Imo State. I happen to know Ifeanyi Arimaha ‘m’ from Achi Mbeiri and a Tipper driver. I happen to know Ifeanyi Arinaha ‘m’ when the sister one Ngozi ‘f’ who is married at Spain duped me of the sum of N1.250M for Spanish Visa and also I know right from origin because his place is my maternal home Achi Mbeiri. Based on the dupe, on 2/1/2011, I went to Achi Mbeiri to look for Ifeanyi Arimaha ‘m’, I met his absence but saw his wife at his home. On the 9/1/2011, I repeated the journey, I did not see him at his home but met him on my way going. As I met him on the way, I told him what the sister Ngozi did that frustrated me, but Ifeanyi Arimaha ‘m’ told me that that is my business with Ngozi and that I should come back thereafter so that he can put me on line for a business.
Based on what he told me, I went to his house on the 10/1/2011 but met his absence. On the 16/1/2011 being Sunday, by 6 p.m-7 p.m., I met Ifeanyi ‘m’ at Ubomiri where he was drinking, when I was with him, his phone rang and Ifeanyi ‘m’ stepped aside and was answering the phone. I overheard when he was telling the person that called him that if that number is not the right one, he should pest the number on the door. After answering his phone, Ifeanyi Arimaha ‘m’ came to me and told me that what he called me is not what they will discuss there that I should come to his house. When I got home on the 16/1/2011, I notified Ifeanyi ?m? that I arrived my house safely, Ifeanyi then told me that he will not go to work on 17/1/2011 and 18/1/2011, that he has a business at Orodo to attend on the 18/1/2011. I however called him on the 18/1/2011 and he invited me to come to his house on the 19/1/2011, I went to see Ifeanyi as invited, but did not see him, on my was at Umuduruzubi Achi Mbeiri, while I was waiting for a motorcycle, I saw one Chinedu Osuoha ‘m’ coming out from Amaegu Road, in Achi Mbeiri.
He told me that there is a help he will render to me. Chinedu Osuoha ‘m’ told me that he rented the motorcycle he was using for a business but he later carried me with the motorcycle to Ubomiri that he was not using it as a cyclist ‘Okada’. As the bike was going, Chinedu asked me that it has been a long time he has not seen me, that what I am doing. I told Chinedu that I am doing a petty business and lived at Ogbaku in Mbaitoli. Chinedu told me that I am lucky that he is going toward Izombe in Oguta L. G. A. Via Ogbaku in Mbaitoli L.G.A. Chinedu rode through Ohii Road to Orogwe and finally Ogbaku with me.
There and then he further told me that he was going to toss his Sugar Mummy ‘JCC’ for some money, there at Ogbaku at a Filling Station, Chinedu answered several phone calls, in one of the discussion, I overheard the caller telling Chinedu that she wants to speak to her mother, Chinedu replied the called that she should feel relaxed that he has assured her nothing will happen to her mother. Chinedu demanded for my phone and I gave it to him and he transferred a number into my phone. The number was transferred to my phone at Ubomiri in Mbaitoli L.G.A. When both of jus stopped at Ogbaku, Chinedu told me that his Sugar Mummy will give me between N90,000.00 to N130,000.00, so when both of us moved along Izombe Road, he received a call, and Chinedu requested to know the colour of cloth the person is wearing. The person answered that she is wearing ash coloured dress. So Chinedu gave me the phone, so that I can communicate with her. The woman then called me and asked whether I was the person that Chinedu sent to come and collect the money.
I then asked her what the colour of her dress was, she answered that it was yellow top dress and ash skirt. I then answer her that I was the person Chinedu sent to come and collect money. When the woman asked me of my position, I told her that I was at Izombe Road by Ejemekwruru. While I was waiting for her, Chinedu came and told me that the woman I was waiting for had passed on a bike. Chinedu was hiding behind a fence opposite one Filling Station named ?PROSCO?, while I was standing along the Izombe Road near the Filling Station. Chinedu then asked me to call her back to the Filling Station. Before the woman came back Chinedu had left his former position to the Filling Station and asked me to call her to return to the Filling Station which I did. The women make a mistake and passed our point again, Chinedu who was hiding behind Filling Station queried me what I am doing that the woman has passed again. I called her to return back land stop at the Filling Station near one house called ‘Mercy of God’.
She came and stopped at the Filling Station while the bike man a distant place. The woman asked me whether I was the one to collect the money, I told her yes, and she handed over the money to me. I moved out together with her. When both of us were standing, she asked of Mama. I did not respond to her, she repeated the question about Mama. I replied her that they will call her. I wanted to go with the woman, but she said I should wait for my bike. I wanted to ask her what happened but she told me that she will call me on phone, so I left her and the bike man started the bike and they left. As I was standing to look for a bike, Chinedu ‘m’ came out and asked me where I am going with the money, do I know anything about the money. He came out with Awka made locally gun. It was when we stopped at the Filling Station near mercy of God, that Chinedu removed from the carriage, a polythene and bring out locally made gun, two mouth and gave me. When I asked the purpose of the gun, he told me whether I am a ‘Mugu’.
I collected the gun for my protection. Chinedu ordered me to drop the money. I can remember the money was rapped with a purple polythene bag. I then drop the money, after Chinedu pointed gun on me and he took the money and asked me to return his gun to him which I did. Chinedu started his bike and moved, while I started looking for another bike. Before Chinedu leave me, I asked him about the money he promised me, Chinedu told me whether I do not known his place at Achi Mbeiri. I stopped a bike and asked the bike man to pursue Chinedu, because of a truck accident that happened along the road at Ogbaku, I miss Chinedu. I then proceeded to his house at Achi Mbeiri, so I did not see him. In only met his father in the house. The father told me to look for him that he was very busy since morning. The bike man charge me N600.00 and I dropped my phone with a girl at Ogbaku who gave me the money to settle the bike man and I return to my house at Ogbaku. I claimed my phone the next day.
I know Nwadiuto Nwakuma, he was one of the people that waited outside to receive the woman Madam Josephine Acholonu now late, when she will be brought out through the window. Chinedu Osuoha was the person that first entered the compound through the back window which they pulled out, Chinedu was accompanied with Chimechefulam, Ifeanyi Arimaha is the gang leader, he was the person that brought a red car owned by his friend. The purpose of bringing the red car was to convey Madam Josephine Acholony (f) to a place I do not know. I can guise the registration Number of the car to be 907 Lagos state, Wagon Golf. On the 19/1/2011, being Wednesday when I was looking for Chinedu Osuoha, I went to Umuduruzubi where somebody told me to go to Umuduruoluchi, that I will see Chinedu Osuoha, Nwadiuto Nwakwuma and Catherine Nwakwuma at the back of Catholic Church. When I got there I saw them. As I met them, Chinedu’s phone rang and he said wait let me hand over the phone to your mother, so he handed the phone to Madam Catherine Nwakwuma (f), I heard Catherine (f) pretending to be crying and the caller was telling Catherine (f) who posed as the victim not to tell anybody that her sons stays in oversea country or has money. As Catherine (f) was discussing on phone, Ifeanyi Arimaha (m) came to the venue with a native attire and saw me and said this is the business he wanted to introduce to me. I went to Nwadiuto to know what happened to the woman, Josephine Acholonu (f), Nwadiuto (m) told me that the job that Chinedu Osuoha (m) and Chimechefulam supposed to do snappy, they went and form up.
When I asked Nwadiuto, he told me it was Oga Patrick’s mother that they wanted to kidnap, a job they started planning since August, 2010, Chinedu Osuoha and Chimechefulam forked up and lost the woman’s life. Nwadiuto father told me that Chimechefulam used to follow them in their business of kidnapping. A boy called Chimezie Njoku (m) was the boy that opened the protector window three days before they went to kidnap the woman, Chimezie Njoku (m) is a cyclist at Achi Mbeiri. When we were in the Catholic Church, Nwadiuto (m) told Chinedu to call that Chimezie Njoku to go to the house of Madam Josephine pick his polythene bag that contained Nwadiuto compact Mopol Coloured short nicker and cap before Ijeoma would come and carry it. I do not know Ijeoma in person. So Chinedu called Chimezie immediately but Chimezie replied that he was washing his bike. The people I know have a hand in the murder of Madam Josephine Acholonu are (1 Nwadiuto Nwakwuma (2) Chimechefulam (3) Chinedu Osuoha (4) Ifeanyi Arimaha (5) Chimezie Njoku and (6) Catherine Nwakwuma (f) (and myself). Chimezie Njoku was with Nwadiuto outside the compound. I do not know among us went to kidnap mama with gun, I know that they cannot go without a gun.
It was then that Nwadiuto said that Chinedu Osuoha and Chimchefulam forked up sometimes ago when they went to steal in the victim?s children new site that it remains a little they would have been known. This is my first time of going on operation on kidnapping with them. I do not know anything about gun. I was the person that sent message to Mary, the victim’s daughter that she should not sent money to them again that her mother is not alive. I sent the message through my phone to her phone. I did this because the people only gave me the sum N300.00 based on the promise Mary (f) gave me, I sent an Account number to her, through which she should compensate me.
The owner of the Account is Obi Golden Nwabunwane, he sales cloths at Ogbaku Market and he is an Anambra boy. Aunty Mary told me she paid in N30,000.00 to Obi’s Account of Diamond Bank Plc. Obi golden went to the Bank and the Bank was closed, so he used his ATM Card and the ATM said it was unable to complete card. So I called Mary (f) told Mary whether she wanted to arrest me through the Bank. She said no. It is true that Mary later sent the sum of N10,000.00 to me through a boy, one Chukwudi (m) surname unknown but residing at Ogbaku as tenant.
I did not collect the money till date because the boy disappeared to Aba according to information I received. I sent Barrister Emeka to Mary (f), the Barrister later called me and told me that I should not involve him in that case. I was looking for another Barrister that will bring me to the Police Station. It is the Barrister Emeka that encourage me not to come to the Police and he was the person that told me to demand for N100,000.00 as the matter will consume more than N2,000,000.00. When I was discussing with Mary (f), I told her my name is Kelechi, it is true Kelechi is my name, my father call me Kelechi. My parents are alive and they are not aware of this problem, only my sister Nkechi Onukwusi who is a nurse at Umezurike Hospital, Owerri, she heard me talking to Mary on phone and when she questioned, I told her that she is one Mary whose mother died, that is my statement for now.
Signed: Chimezie Onuekwusi
Date: 01/03/2011.
In the face, all the above findings of facts which are supported by abundant evidence of record, I find it difficult to disturb the findings of the learned trial Judge as they are not perverse.
It is clear that the appellant conspired with some other people to kidnap Josephine Achalonu (now late). It is clear that the appellant came to PW with a gun to collect the ransom money. It is clear that he referred to the ransom money as chicken feed showing he expected a bigger sum. It is clear that the appellant was not given a fair share of the ransom hence he felt cheated. It is clear from the record of appeal that he had to be trapped to be arrested after initially escaping from police custody. I find the judgment and sentence of the learned trial judge delivered on 23/3/2016 unassailable. It is hereby affirmed.
This appeal lacks merit. All issues in this appeal are resolved against the appellant.
Appeal is dismissed.
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I agree.
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
I.P Ananaba, Esq.For Appellant(s)
K.A. Leweanya (Mrs) Asst. Chief State Counsel (Dept. of Public Prosecution Ministry of Justice, Owerri)For Respondent(s)
