DAVID EFFIONG EDUENOH v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13935(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 23rd day of July, 2019
CA/C/378C/2017
RATIO
WHETHER A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST BE TAKEN BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER FOR CONFIRMATION
The appellants other grouch was that the confessional statement was not taken, alongside the appellant, to a superior police officer for confirmation. It is settled that the procedure of taking a confessional statement for confirmation by a superior police officer in the presence of an accused is for administrative convenience and not a mandatory requirement of the law, see Isong v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1531) 96; Okashetu v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1534) 126; Ehimiyein v. State (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1538) 173; Ajiboye v. FRN (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1637) 430. It flows, that the failure to abide by this procedure does erode on the validity and viability of a confessional statement. This current position of the law, with due respect, exposes the poverty of the learned appellant?s counsel?s elegant argument on the point. It cannot fly in the appellant?s favour. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DENIAL OF AUTHORSHIP OF A CONFESSIONAL STATMENT MAKES IT INADMISSIBLE
Again, the appellant accused the lower Court of not testing the retracted confessional statement, exhibit 1, with other evidence before it. In the first place, the appellant?s somersault/volt face during trial, vis–vis the ownership of exhibit 1, amounted, in eyes of the law, to retraction of it. Interestingly, denial of authorship of a confessional statement does not make it inadmissible, see FRN v. Barminas (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 177.
A Court of law has the unbridled latitude to act and convict on rescinded confession. However, the law directs that a Court should find evidence, no matter how slight, outside the province of the confession, that corroborates it. In this wise, the Court has invented six questions, as beacon, to guide the Court, to wit: 1. Is there anything outside the confession that shows that it may be true? 2. Is it corroborated? 3. Are the relevant statements of facts made in it true as they can be tested? 4. Was the accused one who had the opportunity of committing the offence? 5. Is the confession possible? 6. Is the alleged confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established?, see Okeke v. State (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 152) 47; Egharevba v. State (supra); Smart v. State (supra); Olaniepekun v. State (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1528) 100; Godsgift v. State (supra); Akinrinlola v. State (supra), Dibia v. State (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 196; Opara v. A.-G., Imo State (supra); FRN v. Barminas (supra); Agu v. State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 171; Agugua v. State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 254. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE ONCE RELEVANT
Once a confession is relevant, it is admissible against an accused who made it save it is excluded in the manner stipulated by the provision of the Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Unarguably, it is within the province of the law for a Court to base conviction on free, cogent and positive confession, see Sule v. State (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33; Omoju v. FRN (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 381; Shalla v. State (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 240; Dibia v. State (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 196; Egharevba v. State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 433; Oko v. State (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1521) 455; Lawal v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1531) 67; Akinrinlola v. State (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 73; Akwuobi v. State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 421; Kolo v. COP (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569) 118; FRN v. Barminas (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 177; John v. State (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1591) 304; Agugua v. State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 254. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
PROOF OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
By way of prefatory remarks, it is important to appreciate the import and features of the substantive offence, armed robbery, which was levelled against the appellant. By virtue of the provision of Section 11, the interpretation clause, of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R II LFN, 2004 (hereunder abridged to ?the Act?), ?robbery? means ?stealing anything and, at or immediately before or after the time of stealing it, using or threatening to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the things stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained?. Where the robbery is accompanied by the use of firearm or offensive weapon which causes or attempts to cause any person?s death or hurt or unlawful restraint or fear, it mutates into an armed robbery, see The State v. Yamusissilka (1974) 6 SC 53 at 62; Ebeinwe v. State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 402; Ikaria v. State (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1389) 639; Bassey v. State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 209. To secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution, the respondent herein, is required, by law, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that: there was robbery or series of robberies; each robbery was an armed robbery and the accused person was one of those who took part in the armed robbery, see Afolabi v. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584; Eke v. State (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1235) 589; Nwaturuocha v. State(2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 170; Abdullahi v. State (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 115) 203; Attah v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190; Okiemute v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 297; Sale v. State (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 14499) 392; Ayo v. State (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 183; Kayode v. State (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 199; Smart v. State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 447; Ikpo v. State (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1521) 501; Ogogovie v. State (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1527) 468; State v. Ajayi (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1532) 196; Osuagwu v. State (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 31; Akwuobi v. State (2017) NWLR (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt.1550) 421; State v. Ekanem (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1554) 85; FRN v. Barminas (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 177; Eze v. FRN (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 433; Agugua v. State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 254; Thomas v. State (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 230; Amadi v. A.-G., Imo State (2017) 11 NWLR (1575) 92. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
ELEMENTS TO PROVE A CRIME UNDER CASE LAW
The case-law has sanctioned three ways of proving commission of a crime viz: (a) Eye witnesses evidence; (b) Confessional evidence or (c) Circumstantial evidence, see Maigari v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 425; State v. Isah (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 613; Abirifon v. State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 587; Okiemute v. State (supra); FRN v. Barminas (supra), Eze v. FRN (supra); Igbikis v. State (supra) (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 126. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
