EMMANUEL SUNDAY NNAH v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13081(CA)
In The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019
CA/C/166C/2016
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: HOW TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED
I’ve acknowledged that the proof of the guilt of the accused individual by the prosecution might both be completed by the voluntary confession of the accused, by direct credible and dependable eye witness account or by circumstantial proof pointing on the guilt of the accused. In different phrases, the place there isn’t a eye witness account or direct proof of the fee of an offence, a conviction could also be primarily based on circumstantial proof.PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: WHEN IT WILL LEAD TO A CONVICTION
There isn’t a yardstick by which any circumstantial proof could be measured earlier than a conviction could be entered in opposition to an accused individual. Thus, every case relies upon by itself details. Nonetheless, one check which such proof should fulfill is that it ought to result in the guilt of an accused individual and depart no diploma to chance or probability that different individuals may have been chargeable for the fee of the offence.PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE IS THE ESSENCE OF RESORT TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The absence of direct proof is certainly the very essence of resort to circumstantial proof. Thus the Courtroom might infer from the details proved the existence of different details which will logically are likely to show the guilt of an accused individual. See IDOWU V STATE (1998) 11 NWLR (pt 574) 354. In IJIOFFOR V STATE (2001) 9 NWLR (pt 718) 371, KARIBI WHYTE JSC at web page 390 paras. E H stated:
There isn’t a direct proof of the truth that appellant gave the corrosive substance i.e. acid to the deceased.alternative to take action.PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
WHEN THE APPELLATE COURTS SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN THE EVIDENCE EVALUATED BY THE TRIAL COURT
The place as on this case, the trial Courtroom had correctly evaluated the proof earlier than it earlier than ascribing probative worth to it, an appellate Courtroom can’t and mustn’t disturb such an train. See ARCHIBONG V AKPAN (1992) Four NWLR (pt 238) 750, RABIU V KURE (2010) ALL FWLR (pt 539) 1070, ABDULMUMINI V F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR (pt 1635) 106 at 120.PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
BEFORE A PERSON MUST BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE , THERE MUST BE A WRITTEN LAW
Earlier than any individual could be charged with an offence and convicted for the fee of that offence there have to be a written legislation which could be referred to. Thus, the legislation have to be enacted by the Nationwide Meeting or by the State Home of Meeting, or a legislation made by the Native Authorities Authority or by bye-law which is made pursuant to a different legislation. As well as, the written legislation ought to prohibit an act or mandate the efficiency of the act and similar should present punishment for the transgression both in that legislation or one other written legislation. See OGBOMOR V STATE (1985) 1 NWLR (pt 2) 223. In ONI V FAYEMI (2013) 12 NWLR (pt 1369) 431 at 457, the Supreme Courtroom has held that the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as variously amended is the last word yardstick for figuring out the validity of any act or resolution in relation to any legislation within the nation. Thus, the Courtroom is sure by the doctrine of separation of powers underneath which the enterprise of legislation making is within the unique area of the legislature made up of the higher and decrease chambers of the Nationwide Meeting in addition to State Assemblies.PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
EMMANUEL SUNDAY NNAH Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): The appellant and his father had been arraigned on the Excessive Courtroom of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Ikot Ekpene, charged with 4 counts of kidnapping and aiding kidnapping opposite to and punishable underneath Part 1 (2) and 10 (1) of the Akwa Ibom State Inner Safety and Enforcement Legislation, 2009.
?The prosecution?s case on the trial Courtroom is that the appellant introduced himself to PW1 that he was a prophet and that he noticed in a imaginative and prescient that kidnappers visited his home. On 31st August 2009, the appellant was in PW1?s home to wish for him and when he urged that the prayer be carried out within the parlour, the appellant insisted that it’s held within the kitchen. When PW1?s spouse needed to lock the kitchen door the appellant refused and thus the kitchen door was saved ajar and in a matter of minutes kidnappers entered by the kitchen and kidnapped PW2 and three who’re youngsters of PW1. The abductors demanded N50,000,000.00 and upon negotiation they agreed on N3,000,000.00. The cash was taken to the abductors at Urua Edet in Atai Essien Mkpatak at about 11pm on the ninth
1
day earlier than the hostages had been launched at about 12.am.
The appellant and his father pleaded not responsible to the cost. With a view to show its case, the prosecution known as 5 witnesses and tendered documentary displays, specifically their extra-judicial statements. Each the appellant and his father testified of their defence and known as no extra witness.
?On the finish of the trial, Okon J, in a reserved and thought of judgment delivered on 24/10/2013 discharged and acquitted the appellant?s father however discovered the appellant responsible for aiding the kidnapping of PW1 and PW2. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to dying. The moment enchantment is in opposition to that judgment. The appellant?s discover of enchantment at pages 75 ? 78 of the document of this enchantment dated 29/3/2016 filed on 8/4/2016 and deemed on 26/4/2018 comprises 4 grounds of enchantment. Events filed and exchanged briefs of argument.
?The appellant?s temporary of argument settled by Emmanuel Sani Esq, realized counsel for the appellant was filed on 26/4/2018. At web page 5 of the stated temporary three points are formulated for dedication of this enchantment as follows:-
1. Whether or not the realized trial
2
Courtroom may rightly in legislation speculate and conjecture within the absence of credible proof on document to breach the hole within the prosecution case with mere suspicion thereby substituting similar for proof (Distilled from floor 2).
2. Whether or not the prosecution proved its case as required by legislation to warrant the conviction of the appellant (Distilled from floor 3).
3. Whether or not the Akwa Ibom State Inner Safety and Enforcement Legislation 2009 as enacted upon which the appellant was convicted will not be unconstitutional, and subsequently null and void. (Distilled from floor 1).
?The respondent?s temporary of argument settled by Joseph Umoren, Esq. Director of Public Prosecution, Ministry of Justice; Akwa Ibom State was filed on 11/1/19 however deemed correctly filed on 14/1/2019. The realized DPP formulated two points thus:-
1. Whether or not the conviction of the appellant was primarily based on conjecture/suspicion or on proof past affordable doubt.
2. Whether or not the Akwa Ibom State Inner Safety and Enforcement Legislation 2009 is unconstitutional.
Arguing the primary subject, realized counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Courtroom primarily based the appellant?s
3
conviction on mere conjecture, hypothesis and suspicion and thus there isn’t a direct proof linking the appellant to the fee of the alleged offence.
Nonetheless in argument, realized counsel submitted that it’s not the obligation of the Courtroom to embark upon cloistered justice by making inquiry into the case outdoors the Courtroom. Additionally the Courtroom can’t rightly act on hunches, rumor or suspicion as a result of suspicion is inconsistent with the burden of proof past affordable doubt. He referred to DURUMINIYA V C.O.P. (1960) NWLR 70, ONAH V STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 12) 236 at 244 and KOR V STATE (2007) FWLR (pt 76 657.
On the second subject, the appellant urged that there isn’t a tangible proof on document pointing at any type of widespread intention between the appellant and different perpetrators. It was submitted that the mere presence of the appellant on the scene of crime with none credible proof of his participation doesn’t warrant conviction. He referred to UGURU V. STATE (2001) FWLR (pt 60) 1517 at 1534 and ELE V STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (pt 309) 849 at 872 ? 875.
4
He additional relied on ABACHA V STATE (2002) FWLR (pt 118) 1224 to contend that individual assisted have to be collectively charged and convicted earlier than the accused could be charged for the offence. Thus, there isn’t a proof of an preliminary ingredient instigated by the appellant or any type of constructive act, enlargement to do the act or any type of omission which constitutes the offence attributable to the appellant.
It was additionally submitted that the place circumstantial proof is able to two attainable interpretations, one in all which is in opposition to whereas the opposite in favour of the accused then, within the circumstance there was no proof past affordable doubt and the accused is entitled to be let loose.
?On the third subject, realized counsel contended that the extant legislation underneath which the appellant was tried and convicted is extremely vires the legislative competence of the Akwa Ibom Home of Meeting on the bottom that the subject material is listed within the Unique legislative record. He submitted that terrorism, kidnapping and hostage taking are issues lined underneath the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 to which the Nationwide Meeting has handed it into legislation and similar got here into impact on third June, 2011. That by the
5
doctrine of overlaying the sector, the State Meeting can’t enact a legislation on the identical material which is inconsistent with the provisions of the legislation handed by the Nationwide Meeting. In help, he relied on Part 4 (5) of the 1999 Structure (as amended) and the instances of OLAFISOYE V F.R.N. (2004) Four NWLR (pt 864) 580, OGUN STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORIAL COMMISSION V ACTION CONGRESS (2010) 19 NWLR (pt 1226) 274 at 342 and AG, ABIA STATE V A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR (pt 763) 264 at 391.
Lastly, this Courtroom was urged to resolve all of the three points in favour of the appellant and to permit the enchantment.
On his half, realized counsel for the respondent contended in respect of his first subject that the discovering of the trial Courtroom was borne out of the proof led by the prosecution witnesses and that no miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. He referred to the proof on the printed document and submitted that these items of proof weren’t discredited or contradicted and similar must be accepted as proving an present or alleged truth counting on ADISA V AFUYE (1994) 1 NWLR (pt 318) 74 at 78.
6
Persevering with, realized counsel submitted that given the situation unfolded within the proof of PW1, the appellant was not merely current on the scene of the crime however that there was ample circumstantial proof linking him with aiding within the fee of the crime. And that it was the intentional acts of the appellant that made it attainable and simpler for the precise kidnappers to kidnap the victims on the 31st August, 2009. The trial Courtroom based on the realized counsel is at liberty to make inferences and deduce or infer from the proof earlier than it. He referred to SANUSI V MAKINDE (1994) 5 NWLR (pt 343) 390.
He additional referred to the instances of AHMED V NIGERIAN ARMY (2011) 1 NWLR (pt 1227) 89 at 919, and JUA V STATE (2010) Four NWLR (pt 118) 217 at 224 in submitting that circumstantial proof that’s sturdy, compelling, cogent, unequivocal and level irresistibly to the guilt of the accused individual can maintain a cost of crime and floor the conviction of an accused individual.
On the constitutionality or in any other case of the Akwa Ibom State Inner Safety and Enforcement Legislation as contained within the
7
respondent?s second subject, realized counsel argued that kidnapping is an merchandise that’s neither within the Unique nor within the Concurrent legislative lists and thus a Residual by which the Akwa Ibom State Home of Meeting can legislate upon. He referred to EMELOGU V STATE (1988) 1 NSCC 869 and JANICO V STATE (2009) LPELR ? 53.
Discovered counsel referred to the Explanatory Observe to the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, Sections 2 (1) (c) and 30 (1) thereof in addition to Part 32 of the Federal Excessive Courtroom Act to contend that the Act offers primarily with Worldwide Terrorism and Hostage Taking and doesn’t cowl native terrorism and kidnapping and to that extent the Akwa Ibom State Inner Safety and Enforcement Legislation, 2009 is constitutional.
I’ve thought of the argument of realized counsel in respect of the varied formulations. The 2 set of points are seemingly the identical aside from issues of semantics. Nonetheless, the 2 points formulated by the respondent are apt and fairly apposite to the simply dedication of the enchantment. I shall subsequently undertake the stated two points within the dedication of this enchantment.
8
Earlier than procee
