EZEKIEL UKACHI v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13035(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 5th day of April, 2019
CA/YL/135C/2017
RATIO
CONFESSION: WHETHER A PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED ON HIS CONFESSION
The law is trite on the point that a man may be convicted on his own confession alone and there is no law against it.
See AKEEM AGBOOLA V. THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20652 (SC).PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
EZEKIEL UKACHI – Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE – Respondent(s)
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Justice, sitting in Jalingo Taraba State of Nigeria on the 8th Day of October, 2015. The Appellant as an accused person before the lower Court was arraigned before the Court on a two count charge of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 6 (b) and 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and FireArms (Special Provisions) Act 2004. In proof of its case, the prosecution called 15 witnesses and tendered 9 exhibits. The Appellant testified for his defence.
?The learned trial judge found the Appellant guilty for the offences and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy and death by hanging for the offence of Armed Robbery. This is reflected at Pages 125 ? 167 of the Record of Appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal on 2nd November, 2017. The Record of Appeal was transmitted on 21st August, 2017 but was deemed compiled and transmitted on 25th October, 2017. The Appellant?s Brief of argument was filed on 25th June, 2018 but was deemed
1
filed and served on 27th June, 2018. The Respondent?s Brief was filed on 15th October, 2018 but was deemed filed and served on 22nd November, 2018. The Notice of Appeal is predicated on three grounds:-
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law which occasioned miscarriage of justice when he convicted the Accused/Appellant on the manifestly unreliable evidence/testimony of PW15.
PARTICULARS
a)That PW15 had earlier told the Court that they recovered a beretta pistol with ammunition unexpended in its chamber in the bush where the Appellant purportedly ran into and at the same time recognized the Appellant as the person whom he and his team arrested and recovered another beretta pistol from.
b)That only one beretta pistol was tendered in Court.
c)That the Court was not informed of the where about of the other beretta pistol.
GROUND TWO
That the learned trial judge erred in law when he found and held that Exhibit Ezekiel 1 was an admission by the Appellant and that the said exhibit has established the guilt of the Appellant.
PARTICULARS
a)There was no evidence outside the purported confession
2
which made the said purported confession probably true.
b)The Appellant in his evidence denied making the purported confessional statement contained in Exhibit Ezekiel 1.
GROUND THREE
That the learned trial judge erred in law which occasioned miscarriage of justice when he placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW15 who throughout their evidence did not identify the Appellant at the scene of the crime.
a)That none of the prosecution witnesses positively identified the Appellant at the scene of crime.
b)That the evidence of all the Respondent?s witnesses was not corroborated.
In arguing the Appeal the Appellant through his Counsel formulated two issues for determination:-
1)Whether the confessional statement of the Appellant satisfies the test for a valid confessional statement upon which the trial Court relied on in convicting the Appellant (Distilled from ground 2).
2)Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits tendered proved the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 6 (b) and 1 (2) (a & b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act 2004 beyond
3
reasonable doubt against the Appellant or not (Distilled from grounds 1 & 3).
According to Counsel, the confessional statement of the Appellant is marked as Exhibit Ezekiel 1 and tendered through PW13 as shown at Pages 68 & 69 of the Record of Appeal, that counsel objected to its admissibility but was overruled by the lower Court. Counsel submitted that, the tests under which confessional statements are subjected are enunciated in ADELEKE V. THE STATE (2013) 12 SCMJ (Part 2) ? 3 Ratio 5. That the offences for which the Appellant stood trial were committed on the 9th and 12th June 2012; the Appellant testified as DW1 in chief that he is an indigene of Imo and not Delta State as contained in Exhibit Ezekiel 1. That he arrived Jalingo on the 8th day of June and arrested same day, whereas in the said exhibit the Appellant was alleged to have arrived Jalingo on the 10th day of June 2012. Counsel queried that if the Appellant arrived Jalingo on 10th June how could he have committed the offence on 9th June, 2012? He said another question that begs for an answer is whether day time as stated by PW13 the IPO and 11:00 pm or 23:10 as written
4
on the foot of Exhibit Ezekiel 1 are one and the same as shown at Page 72 of the Record of Appeal. These material contradictions according to counsel, ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant by the lower Court. That the prosecution failed to bring anything outside the confession to show that it is true. That the Appellant did not commit the offences alleged and therefore denied making any statement to the police at the time of tendering it. He urged the Court to resolve the first issue in favour of the Appellant.
On issue number two, Counsel submitted that for the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of Armed Robbery the following ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:-
a)That there was robbery or series of robberies
b)That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery, and
c)That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery. He referred to MORUFU V. THE STATE (2005) 1 NCC 342 at 354.
?According to counsel the prosecution witnesses PW1, 2, 3 and 4 failed to link the Appellant to the alleged robbery said to have been committed in Sukani Ardo ? Kola Local
5
Education Authority on the 9th of June, 2012 and Zing on 12th June, 2012 for which the Appellant stood trial. That even PW5 in his testimony before the lower Court said that when the case was reported to him while he was on duty at Sukani Police Station by Aminu Davo and Haruna Bawuro, he went for investigation but made no arrest as shown at Pages 39 ? 47 of the Record of Appeal.
That even PW6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 did not identify the Appellant as being the robber who attacked and robbed them on the 9th June 2012 at Sunkami. That PW6 who claimed that he ran and hid somewhere and was looking at the robbers, could not testify that the Appellant robbed him or any of his colleagues on that fateful day. According to counsel, PW6 during cross examination said:-
?I could not identify the robbers?.
?Learned counsel referred to Pages 45 ? 54 of the Record and submitted that the Prosecution failed to link the Appellant to the alleged robbery. Counsel referred to the material contradictions in the testimonies of PW14 and 15 that while PW14 said a Honda car with registration number AR 468 BEN was used for the robbery which was recovered,
6
PW15 stated that the car that was used by the robbers was a blue boxer bus. He referred to Page 82 of the Record of Appeal and argued that this material contradiction ought to have been resolved by the lower Court in favour of the Appellant.
Counsel cited OSENI V. THE STATE (2012) AFWLR (Part 619) Page 1010 at 1037 ? 8, urged this honourable Court to resolve the second issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the Appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the lower Court. In his response, learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that Exhibit Ezekiel 1 and 1A the confessional statement of the Appellant is a clear admission by the Appellant that he committed the alleged offence. That when the prosecution sought to tender the statement into evidence, counsel to the Appellant objected on the ground that the Appellant did not make it as shown at Pages 26 to 29 of the Record of Appeal. According to counsel, confessional statement does not become inadmissible merely because the maker denies making it. He referred to JEREMIAH V. THE STATE (2012) 14 NWLR (Part 132) 248.
He further submitted that, the Appellant in the said exhibit
7
gave a graphic account of how they carried out the robbery operation at Zing on 12th June, 2012 and the circumstances that led to their arrest at Apawa Junction Numan Road as shown at Pages 26 to 28 of the Record. According to counsel it is trite that an accused person can solely be convicted on his confessional statement if the statement satisfies all the requirements of a confessional statement as provided for in Sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act. He also refers to FATAI V. THE STATE (2013) 2-3 MJSC (Part 1) Pages 145 at 148 Ratio 2. Counsel submitted that the trial Court was right in making its findings that:-
I am satisfied that the confession made by the two accused persons in exhibit Ezekiel 1 and Okachukwu 1 are free and voluntary, direct and positive and has been properly proved before this Court. I am also satisfied with the truth therein contained.
That the lower Court had evaluated the testimony of the Appellant, the confessional statement and other evidence before convicting and sentencing the Appellant and referred to Pages 125 to 167 of the Record of Appeal. That exhibit Ezekiel 1 corroborated the evidence of PW15
8
particularly on the issue of exchange of fire and the arrest of the robbers at Apawa junction. That other facts outside the confession are exhibits A, B, C and D1-7, the Berretta pistol, empty magazine, empty shell and purse containing the passport photographs of the Appellant which were tendered through PW14 without any objection. He referred to Pages 74 – 75 of the Record of Appeal. Counsel urge the Court to hold that with all the above, the confession of the Appellant is possible.
On the proof of Criminal Conspiracy, Counsel submitted that it is not necessary that the conspirators should know each other so long as they knew of the existence and the intention or purpose of the conspiracy. That what has to be ascertained is that the act of the accused persons were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in common between them. He referred to STATE V. OKONKWO (1998) 1 LRCNCC Page 33 at 37 Ratio 4. According to Counsel, the criminal purpose held in common between the Appellant and the co-accused persons was clearly explained by the Appellant in Exhibit Ezekiel 1 especially at Pages 26 to 27 of the Record of Appeal. Counsel further submitted
9
that from the said exhibit, there was an express agreement between the Appellant and the co?accused to do an unlawful act of robbery. He referred to NGUMA V. AG IMO STATE (2014) 233 LRCN Page 41 at 50 Ratio 8.
As to the commission of the offence of Armed Robbery by the Appellant and the other co accused persons, Counsel submitted that PW15 the Divisional Police Officer of Zing Police Divisional Command who led a team of policemen that pursued the Appellant and others, explained vividly the role he played in arresting the Appellant. He urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and uphold the conviction and the sentence of the lower Court. It was the argument of the Appellant?s Counsel that in Exhibit Ezekiel 1 (the confessional statement of the Appellant) it was alleged that the Appellant arrived Jalingo on 10th June, 2012; according to Counsel if the Appellant arrived Jalingo on 10th June, 2012, how could he have committed the offences allegedly committed by him on 9th June 2012?
For clarity purposes Exhibit Ezekiel 1 (the confessional statement of the Appellant) is contained at Pages 26 to 28 of the Record of Appeal and it reads:-
10
………I left Jos Plateau State on 10/06/2012 at about 0800 hours and arrived Jalingo at about 1200hrs of same date in order to purchase motorcycle spare parts. I went to Mile six Jalingo and secured accommodationand then left the hotel and went to one Sunday who sales bear near the hotel at Mile 6 Jalingo. As I entered?.I saw one Ike surname not known who is my village man. He was with one Igbo man, later known as Chimex discussing something I don?t know. I then asked Ike what brought him to Jalingo. He replied that he want to carry out one business with Chimex, two Hausa men having jeep ash colour. At that point he told me that Chimex confronted him to follow him somewhere to go and rob. I told Ike to include my name.On 12/06/2012 at about 0700hrs while I was in my lodge Ike phone me to meet them on the main road at Mile 6. I came out and saw one Jeep. Then Ike called me to join them in the jeep.
So four of us entered the vehicle. Okochukwu Ifealochu, Ike Chukwu Nwachukwu and Chimex joined Honda Prelude ash colour. While Sunday and one other person I don?t know him the owner
11
of the jeep gave Ike one AK 47 rifle, gave one Hausa boy one AK 47 rifle, the same owner of the jeep gave one Sunday one pistol. I don?t know the number of ammunition given to each of them. From there all of us left for Zing and arrived at about 1000hrs and drive straight to the Education Office with two AK 47 rifles and pistol..the four men that entered the office came out after robbing the staff of the Education on gun point and carted away N220,000.00. Then Ike gave me N80,000 out of the N220,000 as my share?.At Apawa junction the police opened fire on us and three of us that were with the gun returned fire. None of us was injured..At a point along Numan road the seven of us ran inside a bush?.immediately I landed on the road, some youths around that area arrested me and got me beaten. Before then, I had thrown the pistol away. The youths rushed to the bush, got Okochukwu Ifealochu and Ike Chukwu Nwachukwu arrested and inflicted injuries on them?..?
A meticulous perusal of Exhibit Ezekiel 1 which is the extra judicial statement of the Appellant before the Police is a clear admission of
12
guilt by the Appellant. It is the settled law that a Confessional Statement which has been proved to have been voluntarily made by an accused person is a relevant fact against him at the trial. A confession therefore is the strongest evidence that can be led against an accused person. If such statement has been duly proved and admitted, it may alone, in some cases, be sufficient to warrant convicting an accused person on it. A confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in evidence is in law the best guide to the truth of the involvement of the accused in the offence charged. In ADEBAYO V. STATE (2014) LPELR 22988 (SC), Ariwoola JSC held that:- On the confession of the accused person this Court Held that evidential value of a confession of truth is very great indeed. It is very sought after by the police investigators and prosecutors. It lightens the burden of prosecution by dispensing with the need to call a host of witnesses. A confession can support a conviction if proved to be made and true. The law is trite on the point that a man may be convicted on his own confession alone and there is no law against it.
13
See AKEEM AGBOOLA V. THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20652 (SC).?
The lower Court held at Pages 161 to 162 of the Record of Appeal thus:-
The 1st accused Ezekiel Ukachi as DW1 gave oral evidence which indicated that as from 8th June 2012 he was in the hands of the police and has so remained up to the date of his arraignment?so according to him he could not have participated in the commission of the offence. However?the evidence of PW12 Sunday Okafor and PW13 ASP Clement Adamu?..clearly shows that the 1st accused was arrested on the 12th June by vigilante members with the help of villagers in Apawa and handed over to the police who had given the robbers a hot pursuit from Zing after the robbery operation that same date. PW12 told the Court that he first saw the 1st accused on Sunday 10th June, 2012 at about 7:30pm in his Beer Parlor in Mile Six, Jalingo. He again saw him in his Beer Parlor on Monday, 11th June 2012 in the afternoon. On the 12th June 2012 at about 7:30pm the police came and arrested PW12 in his Beer Parlor. This was after the 1st accused had given his statement to the police in which he implicated PW12
14
as one of the robbers which led the police to arrest PW12.I find and hold that.Exhibit Ezekiel 1 and Okochukwu 1 are admissions made by the 1st and 2nd accused persons respectively extra judicially suggesting by inference that they committed the crime with which they were charged. See GIRA V. THE STATE (1996) 4 NWLR (Part 443) 375. I am satisfied that the confessions made by the two accused persons in Exhibits Ezekiel 1 and Okochukwu 1 are free and voluntary direct and positive and have been proved before this CourtI find no difficulty in rejecting the defence of Alibi raised by the accused in this case because both of them failed to raise this defence at the earliest possible opportunity they had?.?
From the judgment of the lower Court as reproduced above it is crystal clear that the confessional statement of the Appellant Exhibit Ezekiel 1 was made voluntarily and was positive and direct. Furthermore, the lower Court has evaluated very well the evidence led before it; ascribing the probative value to it. It is trite that in such scenario the Appellate Court cannot interfere with such findings and conclusions of a trial Court.
15
This Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. I equally affirm the Judgment of the Taraba High Court of Justice delivered by Ali I. Andenyangtso J. on 8th October, 2015.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance the judgment delivered by my learned brother Abdullahi M. Bayero, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at in dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. I also dismiss it and affirm the judgment of the trial Court.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO JCA.
?For the reasons contained in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine, I too dismiss this appeal for want of merit. The judgment of the Court below is affirmed by me.
16
Appearances:
C. Osuji, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Hamidu AuduFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
C. Osuji, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Hamidu AuduFor Respondent
