GOYEA v. STATE (2020)

GOYEA v. STATE

(2020)LCN/14461(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020

CA/IB/278C/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

AKINSOJI GOYEA APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON PLEADS GUILTY TO A CHARGE, THE COURT CAN CONVICT HIM AND PASS A SENTENCE

I am of the view that when an accused pleads guilty to a charge duly read and explained to him, the Court can without any other ceremony go ahead and convict him and pass sentence.
See OMOJU VS. FRN (2008) ALL FWLR PART 414 PAGE 1656.
The intention of the Legislature about arraignment and Criminal Justice is to achieve justice.
(1) In the sense that the guilty person shall not go unpunished and
(2) That the innocent shall not suffer.
The plea of guilty is an admission against interest, it is natural that unless the accused person is under compulsion or misapprehension, he would not ordinarily admit commission of an offence which he did not commit. A plea of guilt is a formal confession.
In the circumstance, where plea of an accused person is made after the charge is read and explained to him and the said plea is unambiguous and unequivocal, the accused can be duly convicted if the offence for which he was charged with is not a capital offence.
See the following cases:-
– OFFOR VS THE STATE (SUPRA)
– OKEWU VS FRN(SUPRA)
– DANJUMA RABE VS FRN (2018) LPELR – 46338 (SC)
– UMARU SUNDAY VS FRN (2018) LPELR – 46357 (SC). PER BADA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACCUSED CAN EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN PERSON

The Appellant exercised his right to defend himself in person as Section 36(6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution gives him the liberty to do. See Chukwudi Oyem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019) LPELR – 47392(SC) and Ibrahim v. FRN (2016) All FWLR (pt.829) 1093. In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Oladimeji Kayode (2019) LPELR 48997(SC), Galumje, JSC said:
“The Law is settled that an accused person who pleads guilty to a Criminal charge can be convicted summarily if the Court is satisfied that he intended to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is made much lighter. The only exception to this is where the accused is charged with a capital offence, in which case, a plea of not guilty will be entered for him even though he pleaded guilty. In the instant case, the Respondent apart from the admission of the offence for which he was charged in his extra-judicial statement, he pleaded guilty on arraignment. The trial Court under Section 218 and 285 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act had power to convict him upon his plea.” PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court, Abeokuta Judicial Division in Charge No: AB/16C/2012 BETWEEN: THE STATE VS AKINSOJI GOYEA delivered on 20th day of March 2013.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 24/8/2010 at No.4 Ajegunle Street, Mile 2 Roundabout Abeokuta at about 11.00am, the Appellant went to the house of one Moshood Lawal and kidnapped Moshood Lawal’s 11 months old son by name Faud Moshood Lawal after pretending to be playing with him. When the mother of the child discovered that the Appellant and her child were missing she tried to call the Appellant but his number was switched off. Few hours later she received a text massage from the Appellant demanding for the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) if she wanted her son back, Moshood Lawal later sent the sum of Forty Thousand Naira to the Appellant’s Oceanic bank account but the Appellant demanded for a further sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira, failure of which the child would be killed.

The Appellant was later arraigned before the High Court of Justice,

Abeokuta in Ogun State of Nigeria on one count charge of kidnapping contrary to Section 364 (2) of Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State, 2006.

The Appellant opted to personally conduct his case and thereafter pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Prosecution was then called upon to state the facts of the case and tendered the following Exhibits:
Exhibit “A” – Statement of the Appellant at Oke-Itoku Police Station, Abeokuta dated 5/9/2010.
Exhibit “B” – Statements of the Appellant at the State C.I.D, Abeokuta dated 6/9/10 and 8/9/10.

After the Prosecution stated the facts of its case and tendered the statements, the Appellant admitted the facts of the case which according to Prosecution constitutes the ingredients of the offence with which he was charged.

The learned trial Judge delivered Judgment on 20/3/2013 in which he found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment with hard labour without an option of fine.
The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court, now appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated three issues for the

determination of the appeal. The issues are set out as follows:-
(1) Whether the lower Court was right to enter a plea of guilty for the Appellant without complying with the laid down principles for entering a guilty plea (Distilled from ground 1)
(2) Whether the lower Court was right to convict the accused solely on the basis of his guilty plea and Confessional Statement without having regard to the laid down principles for convicting an accused on his statement alone (Distilled from Ground 2)
(3) Whether there was evidence before the Court to support the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for an offence of kidnapping (Distilled from Ground 3).

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case formulated two issues for the determination of the Appeal. The said issues are set out as follows:-
(1) Whether the lower Court complied with the laid down principles before entering a guilty plea for the Appellant.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant based on the circumstances of this case.

At the hearing of this Appeal on the 1st day of June, 2020 the learned Counsel for the

Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court delivered on 20/3/2013. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 17/3/2015 and it was deemed as properly filed and served on 1/6/2020.

The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 17/2/2017 and it was deemed as properly filed and served on 5/3/2019 and further deemed as properly filed and served on 1/6/2020.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said Appellant’s brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case also referred to the Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 1/3/2019. It was deemed as properly filed on 5/3/2019 and further deemed as properly filed on 1/6/2020.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent adopted and relied on the said Respondent’s brief in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

I have perused the issues formulated for the determination of this appeal by Counsel for both parties.
It is my view that the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the Respondent encapsulates the issues formulated on

behalf of the Appellant for the determination of the Appeal. I will therefore rely on the said issues formulated for the determination of this appeal on behalf of the Respondent.

ISSUES 1 AND 2 FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THIS APPEAL (Taken together)
(1) Whether the lower Court complied with the laid down principles before entering a guilty plea for the Appellant.
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in convicting the Appellant based on the circumstances of this case.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong to enter guilty plea for the Appellant. He contended that the Appellant had no legal representation and he is not in a position to understand the complexity of criminal proceedings nor did he appreciate the consequence of the plea.

He relied on Section 215 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act (applicable in the Southern part of Nigeria).
He relied on the following cases:-
– ONUOHA VS POLICE (1956) NRNLR PAGE 96
– BABA GARKINDA VS C.O.P (1964) NMLR PAGE 103.
– RABIU VS STATE (2005) 7 NWLR PAGE 925 PAGE 491.

It was contended on behalf of the Appellant

that there are no indications in the record of proceedings to show that the learned trial Judge tried to elicit further information by directing questions to the Appellant to determine whether the Appellant fully understood the plea and its consequences. And that the failure to do so was a fundamental error which occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.

The following cases were also relied upon.
– KAJUBO VS STATE (1988) 1 NWLR PART 73 PAGE 721.
– EYOROKOROMO VS STATE (1979) 6-9 SC PAGE 3

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his response referred to Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. He contended that upon arraignment of an accused person, his plea must be taken. He relied on the following cases:-
– UDO VS THE STATE (2006) ALL FWLR PART 337 PAGE 456.
– KALU VS THE STATE (1998) 13 NWLR PART 583 PAGE 55.
– TORI VS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OF NIGERIA (2009) ALL FWLR PART 495 PAGE 1779 AT 1804.
– MADU VS THE STATE (2012) 15 NWLR PART 1324 PAGE 405 AT 451-452

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the requirements of the law were complied with by the trial Court.
The learned Counsel for the

Respondent also relied on the following cases:-
– SOLOLA VS THE STATE (2005) ALL FWLR PART 269 PAGE 1756.
– OKORO VS THE STATE (1998) 14 NWLR PART 594 PAGE 181.

He went further in his submission that contrary to the contention of the Appellant’s Counsel that the fact that the Appellant chose to represent himself should have made the trial Judge enter a plea of not guilty for the Appellant, the right to Counsel is provided for in Section 36 (6) (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which entitles a person charged with a criminal offence to defend himself either in person or through any legal Practitioner of his choice.
He relied upon the case of TOTAL (NIG) PLC VS I.I.R.A (2004) 7 NWLR PART 873 PAGE 446.

It was finally submitted on this issue by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the offence for which the Appellant was charged at the lower Court is not a capital offence, therefore it was unnecessary for the trial Court to have entered a plea of not guilty for the Appellant in the circumstances.

Concerning the second issue in this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that before an accused can

be convicted on a plea of guilty, it must be established that he has admitted all the facts on which his charge is founded as well as guilt in respect of them. He relied on the following cases:-
– ONUOHA VS POLICE (SUPRA)
– OJETOLA VS C.O.P (1972) CCHCH PAGE 29.
– OSIE TITU VS THE STATE (1965) GLR PAGE 593.
– AKANBI VS C.O.P (1993) 1 NCR PAGE 266 AT 269.
– RABIU VS THE STATE (SUPRA).

It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that the condition that there must be independent evidence before the Court can corroborate the Confessional Statement of the accused was not complied with.
He relied on the following cases:- OGUNBAYO VS. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR PART 1035 PAGE 157.
_ TEGWONOR VS. THE STATE (2008) 1 NWLR PART 1069 PAGE 630, (2008) ALL FWLR PART 424 PAGE 1484.
_ OMOGODO VS. THE STATE (1981) 5 SC PAGE 5.
_ ADEBAYO VS. THE STATE (2004) ALL FWLR PART 385 PAGE 498.
_ UDOSEN VS. THE STATE (2007) ALL FWLR PART 356 PAGE 669.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Prosecution did not lead sufficient evidence at the trial Court to prove the case against the accused person.

He relied upon – SECTION 36(5) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA which guarantees a person’s presumed innocence and SECTION 138 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011.
The following cases were also relied upon:-
– ONWUCHEKWA CHUKWU & ANOR VS. THE STATE (2006) LPELR – 7711 (CA).
– UMARU SANI VS. THE STATE (2013) LPELR – 20382 (CA).

It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Prosecution is required by law to prove allegations of commission of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, and further that all ingredients of the offence must be proved to secure a conviction.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the cases of – OGUNBAYO VS. THE STATE (2002) 15 NWLR PART 789 PAGE 76 AT 79.
– THE STATE VS. ONYEUKWU (2004) 14 NWLR PART 893 PAGE 340 AT 379F TO 380B

He finally urged that the issues be resolved in favour of the Appellant and quash the convition of the Appellant.

In his response, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act and stated that the trial Judge followed the law.
He submitted that when an accused

pleads guilty to a charge read and explained to him, the Court can go ahead and convict him and pass sentence. He relied on the following cases:-
– OMOJU VS. FRN (2008) ALL FWLR PART 414 PAGE 1656.
– OFFOR VS. THE STATE (2012) 18 NWLR PART 1333 PAGE 421.
– OKEWU VS. FRN (2012) 9 NWLR PART 1305 AT PAGE 327.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent finally submitted that from the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be deduced that the Appellant committed the said crime for which he was charged and convicted.

RESOLUTION
The Appellant in this case was arraigned before the Ogun State High Court on a one count charge of kidnapping contrary to Section 364(2) of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006.

This is a pathetic case, I will therefore reproduce the proceedings and Judgment as follows:-
“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
OGUN STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABEOKUTA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABEOKUTA
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. MABEKOJA – JUDGE
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
Court No. 3
Suit No. AB/16c/12
BETWEEN:
THE STATE – COMPLAINANT

AND
AKINSOJI GOYEA (m) – ACCUSED PERSON
Accused person is present.
Mrs. M. O. Osinbajo (with her – Miss S. U. Ohafia (SC) for the State.
No legal representation for the Accused person.
Osinbajo – This matter is coming up for the first time. We have been able to serve three out of our witnesses.
Court – May I know whether the accused person intends to engage a counsel for his defence.
Accused person- I intend to personally conduct my case. I am not engaging a lawyer.
Court – The plea of the accused person should be taken.
PLEA
Charge read and explained to the accused person in English language which he claimed to understand and he pleaded GUILTY to the one count charge.
Court -The Prosecution should state the facts of the case.
Osinbajo – On 24th August, 2010, at No. 4, Ajegunle Street, Mile 2, Rounder, Abeokuta, at about 11.00am, the accused person went to the house of Moshood Lawal at the address earlier stated and kidnapped Moshood Lawal’s 11 months old child – Fuad Moshood Lawal after pretending as if he was playing with him. Few minutes after, the mother of

the child, Fausat Lawal, did not see her child and the accused person. The mother of the child tried to call the accused person on phone but his line was switched off. Few hours later, the mother of the child received a text message from the accused person. In the text message, the accused person demanded for a sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) from the mother of the child if she wanted her son back. The mother of the child immediately alerted her husband (the father of the kidnapped child) and they immediately reported the case to the Police. The case was initially reported at Oke Itoku Police Station. After reporting the case to the Police, the father of the kidnapped child on his own, sent a sum of Forty Thousand Naira (N40,000.00) to the accused person. The accused person took the money and demanded for additional sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira (N300,000.00) before he would return their child. All efforts made by them to reach the accused person and rescue the baby boy proved abortive.
On 4th of September, 2010, the Police were able to apprehend the accused person. After he was charged and cautioned in English language, he volunteered a

statement in English language which was recorded by Sergent Abiodun Olulebi. I tender the statement (Exhibit A). Later on, he was transferred to the State C.I.D. Abeokuta where he was charged and cautioned in English language. He made another statement to the Police which he wrote himself. I tender the statement (Exhibit B). He confessed to the crime in his statements to the effect that he hid the baby in a BACO sack and that the baby suffocated and died inside the said bag. I urge the Court to convict him.
Accused person- I admit all the facts as stated by the Prosecution except for the fact alleging that I put the child in BACO bag where he suffocated. Two of us committed this offence. The 2nd person is at large. I was the one inside the room playing with the child. I passed the child through the window to my second who was outside. It was my second who took the child away from the scene. I later joined him and we both took the child to Lagos. That is the only portion I am disputing.
Court- See pages 320 – 322 for the judgment (Accused person found guilty as charged. Convicted and sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment with hard

labour).
(SGD)
O. Mabekoje
Judge
20/3/2013”

Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides as follows:-
“……the person to be tried upon any charge or information shall be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order, and the charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court and such person shall be called upon to plead instantly thereto …”
Whenever an accused person is arraigned before the Court, his plea must be taken.
In UDO VS. THE STATE (SUPRA) the Supreme Court stated the requirements of a valid arraignment thus:-
(1) The accused person must be placed before the Court unfettered.
(2) The charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court by the Registrar or other officer of the Court.
(3) The accused shall be called upon to plead instantly to the charge, unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
(4) The plea of the accused person shall be instantly

recorded by the Court.
See – KALU VS. THE STATE (SUPRA).
– MADU VS. THE STATE (SUPRA).
In this case, the learned trial Judge complied with the requirements above. Page 18 of the record of appeal showed that the charge was read and explained to the Appellant in the language he understood before he pleaded GUILTY to the one count charge.
In OKORO VS THE STATE (SUPRA) it was held among others as follows:-
“The Provision of the Law should not be stretched to a point of absurdity by reading into it that the Judge must record that the charge was explained to the accused to his satisfaction before taking his plea. It will be impeaching to the integrity of the Judge to do that, as no Judge will take the plea of an accused if he is not satisfied that the charge was read and explained to his satisfaction.”
In this case the fact that the Appellant chose to represent/defend himself should not have made the trial Judge enter a plea of not guilty for the Appellant because the offence for which the Appellant was charged at the trial Court is not a Capital Offence.
Under Section 36(6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

a person charged with a Criminal offence is entitled to defend himself either in person or through a Legal Practitioner.
He cannot be denied a right to defend himself or the right to Counsel of his choice. And Counsel cannot be imposed on him. See – TOTAL NIGERIA PLC. VS. I.I.R.A (2004) 7 NWLR PART 873 PAGE 446.
The accused/Appellant pleaded guilty at the trial Court.
Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act states thus:-
“If an accused pleads guilty to any offence with which he is charged, the Court shall record his plea as nearly as possible in the words he used by him and if satisfied that he intended to admit the truth of all the essential ingredients of the offence of which he has pleaded guilty, the Court shall convict him of that offence and pass sentence upon or make an order against him unless there shall appear sufficient cause to the contrary.”
In this case, a careful reading of the Proceeding and Judgment of the trial Court set out earlier in this Judgment showed that the trial Judge followed the above Provisions of Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

He even went further by asking the Prosecution to state the facts of the case. And he invited the accused/Appellant to respond to the facts stated by the Prosecution.
The Appellant then admitted the facts of the case. The accused/Appellant stated that he did not commit the offence alone. He stated that he was inside the room playing with the child (11 months old) and that he passed the child kidnapped through the window to his second who took the child away, and that he later joined the co-conspirator at large and they both took the child to Lagos.
I am of the view that when an accused pleads guilty to a charge duly read and explained to him, the Court can without any other ceremony go ahead and convict him and pass sentence.
See OMOJU VS. FRN (2008) ALL FWLR PART 414 PAGE 1656.
The intention of the Legislature about arraignment and Criminal Justice is to achieve justice.
(1) In the sense that the guilty person shall not go unpunished and
(2) That the innocent shall not suffer.
The plea of guilty is an admission against interest, it is natural that unless the accused person is under compulsion or misapprehension, he would not

ordinarily admit commission of an offence which he did not commit. A plea of guilt is a formal confession.
In the circumstance, where plea of an accused person is made after the charge is read and explained to him and the said plea is unambiguous and unequivocal, the accused can be duly convicted if the offence for which he was charged with is not a capital offence.
See the following cases:-
– OFFOR VS THE STATE (SUPRA)
– OKEWU VS FRN(SUPRA)
– DANJUMA RABE VS FRN (2018) LPELR – 46338 (SC)
– UMARU SUNDAY VS FRN (2018) LPELR – 46357 (SC)
In conclusion I am of the view that the position of law is that after a plea of guilty by an accused in non-capital offences, the trial Court must formally proceed to conviction of the accused without calling upon the Prosecution to prove the commission of the offence by establishing the burden of proof ordinarily required by law. The law does not require a full trial in the circumstance. The Appellant’s plea of guilty in this case was properly taken thereby making his arraignment a valid one. The learned trial Judge was therefore right in proceeding to convict and sentence

the Appellant as he did. See – DONGTOE VS C.S.C PLATEAU STATE(2001) 9 NWLR PART 717 PAGE 132.
In OMOJU VS FRN (SUPRA), the Supreme Court held among others that …………………………….
“……. I do not see any language in Section 218 suggesting that the Court must ask the Appellant if he admits all the essentials of the offence of which he pleads guilty. All that the Section requires, is that the Court must be satisfied that the accused person intended to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence…
The moment the Judge is so

satisfied, he can convict and pass the appropriate sentence.”
Consequent upon the foregoing, this issue Numbers 1 and 2 are hereby resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
In the result, this appeal therefore lacks merit and it is dismissed.
The Judgment of the trial Court in charge No: AB/16C/2012 – THE STATE VS AKINSOJI GOYEA delivered on 20th day of March, 2013 is hereby affirmed.
Appeal Dismissed.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege to have read in advance, the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA.

The main issue that called for the determination of this Court in this appeal is a narrow one. The issue is whether there was a proper arraignment of the Appellant before the trial Court; and whether the trial Court properly convicted the Appellant on his plea of guilty. The notes of the trial Court discloses that, there was a proper arraignment of the Appellant as required by Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The charge was read to him in the language he understood and he indicated that he did. The learned

trial judge ensured that he understood the charge against him before his plea of guilt was taken. The Appellant exercised his right to defend himself in person as Section 36(6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution gives him the liberty to do. See Chukwudi Oyem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019) LPELR – 47392(SC) and Ibrahim v. FRN (2016) All FWLR (pt.829) 1093. In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Oladimeji Kayode (2019) LPELR 48997(SC), Galumje, JSC said:
“The Law is settled that an accused person who pleads guilty to a Criminal charge can be convicted summarily if the Court is satisfied that he intended to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is made much lighter. The only exception to this is where the accused is charged with a capital offence, in which case, a plea of not guilty will be entered for him even though he pleaded guilty. In the instant case, the Respondent apart from the admission of the offence for which he was charged in his extra-judicial statement, he pleaded guilty on arraignment. The trial Court under Section 218 and 285 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act had power to

convict him upon his plea.”
The same scenario obtains in the instant case on appeal before us.
I therefore agree with my learned brother that this appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Hon. Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein and I adopt them as mine. I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial Court.

Appearances:

MRS. S. I. NWANKWO For Appellant(s)

ADEKUNLE MANUWA (Assistant Chief State Counsel, Ogun State Ministry of Justice) For Respondent(s)