JOHN v. STATE
(2022)LCN/16960CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022
CA/PH/33CR/2021
Before Our Lordships:
Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Olabode Abimbola Adegbehingbe Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
BRIGHT JOHN APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS SHIFTS FROM THE ACCUSED TO THE PROSECUTION
In criminal proceedings, the duty or burden of proving the guilt of an accused is exclusively that of the prosecution, and this burden does not shift. For an accused to be convicted, the prosecution must cogently establish all the ingredients or elements of the offence(s) with which the accused/defendant is charged, or the case fails. The standard of proof required to be discharged by the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
CONVICTIONS FOR THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
For ease of reference, the provisions of the 2 laws under which the charges against the Appellant were founded will be reproduced hereunder. Starting with Section 1 (1) (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act LFN 2004, which covers counts 1 and 2, provides thus:
“1(1) any person who commits the offence of robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than twenty one years;
(2) if
(a) any offender mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section is armed with firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed;
(b) at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.”
THE INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
In Bozin V. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465 at 467, the Supreme Court outlined the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which must be proved in order to secure a conviction as follows:
“ i. That there was a robbery or series of robberies;
ii. That each robbery was an armed robbery.
iii. That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robberies.”
To sustain conviction with respect to the offence of armed robbery, the three (3) ingredients set out above must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the Respondent. In this appeal, the Respondent fielded in one witness as PW1 who was also the IPO of the case. PW1 testified and tendered the Confessional Statement of the Appellant which the lower Court admitted and marked “Exhibit A”.
Exhibit A contains admission by the Appellant of the commission of the offences for which he was charged. Although the Appellant under cross-examination unequivocally stated that his admission of the commission of the offences is “because the torturing was much”. See page 61 of the Record. PER ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rivers State High Court delivered on 27th July, 2021 by O. Gbasam J. in Charge No. PHC/69/CR/2021.
The facts leading to this appeal from the standpoint of the Appellant, who was the Defendant/Accused person at the lower Court, is that on 9th August, 2019, the Appellant came back from the waterside between 9:30 pm and 10:00pm, where he went to buy diesel and got a call from his client to supply diesel and delivered same to him at UTC, Mile 1, for trucking. The Appellant took the diesel requested for to Mile 1, Diobu and concluded the transaction at about 11:16pm. Due to the lateness of the night, the Appellant decided to spend the night at UTC, Mile 1, Port Harcourt. Upon the Appellant’s return to the Waterside the following morning, being the 10th of August, 2019, he observed that the boat he rented had been taken away. Following enquiries, he was informed by the woman who sells fish around the waterside that one Fela had taken the boat. He went to accost Fela because he knew him, and requested that he pays for the use of the boat. Fela paid the daily rate of N3000 (Three Thousand Naira Only) which is the money for hiring the hand paddling boat per day. 3 days after the Appellant had accosted Fela, he got a call from the boat owner, asking where he took the boat to a few days earlier and not long thereafter, he was arrested by the police and investigation commenced while he was kept in police custody. He was subsequently arraigned before the trial Court on the 3rd of February, 2021 on a 3 count charge of:
1. Armed Robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap RII, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, (Counts 1 & 2); and
2. Membership of and Participation in Secret Cult Activities contrary to Section 1 of the Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) (Amended) No. 6, Laws of Rivers State, (Count 3).
In proof of its case, the Prosecution/Respondent called a sole witness, the IPO of the case and tendered three exhibits marked Exhibits A, B & C. In defence, the Defendant/Appellant testified as DW1 and tendered no Exhibit. Thereafter, parties filed their respective Written Addresses which they adopted and the matter was adjourned for judgment.
In its judgment delivered on 27/07/2021, the lower Court found the Appellant guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment on counts 1 and 2, and life imprisonment on count 3.
The Appellant who was worsted in the judgment elected to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with it by filing a three Grounds Notice of Appeal to this Court on 20/09/2021 which is contained at pages 92 – 95 of the Record of Appeal transmitted on 12/10/2021.
In compliance with the Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by Donald Atogbo, Esq., of Adedipe & Adedipe was filed on 02/11/2021. Learned counsel distilled one issue for determination thus:
“Whether, having regard to the evidence produced by the prosecution on the facts of this case, the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant by the learned trial judge for the offences of armed robbery and membership of and participation in secret cult activities were proved as required by law, (Grounds 1, 2 & 3).”
On the other hand, the Respondent’s counsel Gladsomenews Amannah, Esq., (Principal State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Rivers State) filed the Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 01/06/2022 but deemed properly filed on 02/06/2022. In the said brief, learned counsel also submitted a sole issue for determination, thus:
“Whether the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for the offences of Armed Robbery, Membership and participation in Secret Cult activities by the learned trial judge based on the evidence led during trial occasioned any miscarriage of justice against the Appellant to warrant setting aside by this Honourable Court.”
During the hearing of this appeal on 02/06/2022, Appellant’s counsel, D. Atogbo, Esq., identified and adopted the Appellant’s brief filed on 02/11/2021. He urged the Court to allow the appeal and discharge and acquit the appellant.
Conversely, Respondent’s counsel, G. U. Amannah, Esq., also identified and adopted the brief filed on behalf of the Respondent on 01/06/2022 but regularized on 02/06/2022 and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUE
Arguing the sole issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that a careful perusal of the facts of this case will show that, the offences the appellant was charged with, stricto sensu, were not made out by the Respondent. That the Record bears eloquent testimony that the learned judge hinged his entire judgment on Exhibit “A” – the involuntary confessional statement and the perceived conduct of DW1 (the Appellant), without sufficient corroboration and regard to the ingredients of the offences for which the appellant was charged. That in criminal trial, the onus of proving the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt is at all times on the prosecution. He referred to Mbenu V. the State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) at 615, P. 626, Paras. C-D, Woolmington V. DPP (1935) A. C. 462, Minister of Pensions V. Miller (1947) 3 All ER 372, 374 and Oteki V. Att. Gen. Bendel State (1986) 6 NWLR (Pt. 24) 648 for the point.
Learned counsel further pointed out that from the entire gamut of the evidence of PW1, he could not specifically pin the Appellant to the offences for which he was charged. That a major difference exists between the evidence in chief and the cross-examination of PW1 before the lower Court. That this major difference will make a difference in the ultimate outcome of this appeal, as it shows that, the evidence of the Respondent’s only witness was neither precise nor consistent enough to prove that the Appellant committed the offences for which he was charged. Learned counsel highlighted three instances of the inconsistencies apparent in the evidence of PW1 as follows:
“a. It was in the process of the Appellant trying to sell the Nokia Asha 205 phone that it was identified as a stolen good and the Appellant was arrested, then the victims were notified to come to the Police Station at Azikiwe and the complainant identified the phone to be her phone (Page 51 of the Record), but under cross-examination, PW1 stated that, the Complainants saw the phone with the Appellant and ran to the police and told them that they had found their phone with the Appellant (Page 53 of the Record).
b. Another inconsistency is where PW1 stated in his examination in chief that, upon their further investigation, they found out that the Appellant was the owner of the hand-paddling boat used to commit the offence of armed robbery, but under cross-examination stated that he could not remember who the owner of the hand-paddling boat was and when given Exhibit A, he read out the name of the owner as one “Barizondu.” (Page 53 of the Record).
c. Again, PW1 claimed that his team, ‘Eagle Crack’ conducted extensive investigations that led to their findings and charge of the Appellant for 3 offences, but under further cross-examination, PW1 stated that the appellant was charged for 4 offences: Conspiracy, robbery, cultism and stealing. (Page 53 of the Record).
Learned counsel then contended that upon clear analysis of the evidence given by PW1, it is obvious that he was not the Investigating Police Officer in the case, as he appears not to have a grasp of the details of the case and did not know the offences the Appellant was charged with. That PW1 was unable to positively assert that the accused himself robbed the complainants who were not called as witnesses. That the consequence of the weak evidence of the Respondent’s sole witness failing to link the Appellant to the crimes is fatal. Learned further submitted that the evidence adduced by PW1 in support of the Respondent’s case is not convincing enough to ground the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant. That going by the quality of the evidence of PW1, the Appellant ought to be discharged and acquitted.
That the Respondent failed to prove the ingredients of armed robbery against the appellant in its case and that the burden of proof which does not shift stays with the prosecution. He argued that the onus of proof here lies on the Respondent to give strong evidence that the Appellant committed armed robbery as alleged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Charge. He cited Ikemson V. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 AT 477 Paras. F-G, Aruna V. State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) AT 135 Paras. B – F and Bozin V. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465 AT 467 Paras. A – B for the point.
Learned counsel then argued that a study of count 2 will reveal that the Appellant was charged with the offence of armed robbery but there was no mention of any arm whatsoever in the particulars of the offence, which learned counsel reproduced in his brief. Learned counsel then submitted that there is no evidence or proof of a weapon on the Appellant, or evidence of injury, or alleged threat to anybody and that there is no proof before the Court of the valuation of the items stolen. That there is also the absence of an investigative police report to show that actual and proper investigation was carried out before and after the appellant was arrested.
It is further argued by the learned counsel that without any weapon being mentioned or any word that represents a weapon in the Particulars of offence under Count 2, the offence of armed robbery is not proved and as such nullifies the attempt to bring the Appellant under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, LFN, 2004, by the Respondent. That in armed robbery, the presence of arms and the robbery itself is indispensable ingredients which the Respondent must establish in law. He referred to Okeke V. F.R.N (2020) 18 NWLR (Pt. 18) 118 @ 145, Paras. E – F to buttress the point and then submitted that the Respondent failed in adducing sufficient and vital evidence to ground a conviction of the appellant on counts 1 and 2.
On the offence of membership of and participation in secret cult activities, learned counsel submitted that the law under Section 10 (1) (2) of the Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) (Amendment) Law No. 6 of Rivers State provides the tests to be conducted to prove the offence. That for a person to be presumed a member of and participant in secret cult activities, he must meet the requirements stipulated by the law. That the Respondent did not prove that the Appellant is or can be presumed to be a member of any secret cult, as the ingredients of such presumption are absent. That it was not shown by the evidence of the Respondent that the Appellant attends secret cult meetings or activities, or that he is in possession, custody or control of the insignia, documents or other property belonging to a secret cult, or that he wears any such insignia or mark associated with any sign or symbol of any secret cult.
Learned counsel argued that if the evidence of PW1 is analyzed, it would be seen that no evidence is available to corroborate the allegation of membership of and participation of secret cult activities against the Appellant; as such the Appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced on count 3.
Learned counsel further submitted that when the unchallenged evidence of the Appellant is juxtaposed with the evidence produced by the Respondent, it will be shown that a doubt has been created. That in criminal trials, once there is a doubt in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on material facts as to guilt of an accused person, such doubt is usually resolved in favour of the accused person and it is not the duty of the judge to provide explanation for such or filling in the gaps. He referred to State V. Emine (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 256) SC 658 at 674, Para. B and State V. Danjuma (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 506) SC 512 at 528 – 529, Paras. H-A for the point.
Learned counsel contended that the presence of a confessional statement does not relieve the prosecution of its key duty to prove the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. That it is trite law that for a Court to rely solely on a confessional statement, it must be positive, unequivocal and direct. He further submitted that it is not safe for a Court to hold that just because the confessional statement includes some facts about the accused, it is automatically full proof and basis for conviction. He referred to Abasi V. State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 260) 383 AT 389, 404, Paras. D – C for the point. He argued that Exhibit A cannot be said to be either positive or direct, and it does not even place the Appellant as one who committed the offences charged.
On the legal effect of retracting a confessional statement, learned counsel submitted that the law is that not all confessional statements can ground conviction solely, particularly when the accused retracts the confessional statement. He referred us to the case of Ogugu V. State (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 134) 539 AT 552 – 553 Paras. G–A. That the lower Court erred when it failed to consider the defence raised by the Appellant, but rather came to the erroneous conclusion that the defences raised by the Appellant was an afterthought and was of no moment.
Learned counsel also submitted that where the accused person was not arrested on the spot or during the event of armed robbery to verify the identity of the accused as the armed robber, an identification parade must be carried out as it is insufficient to pin a crime on a man out of mere speculation and circumstantial facts that have not been proved. He cited Alabi V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511 AT 524, 525 Paras. B-C, F-G.
Learned counsel further noted that the trial Court failed and neglected to properly evaluate the evidence and defences raised by the appellant. That if the lower Court had considered the said evidence, it would have arrived at a different conclusion. In the end, he urged us to hold that there was no sufficient evidence in the testimony of PW1, or Exhibits A, B and C to ground the conviction of the Appellant and that the charge of armed robbery and membership of and participation in secret cult activities were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
Reacting to the argument of the Appellant, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that in criminal proceedings, the onus of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution who must prove same beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. He referred to the case of Fulani V. State (2018) LPELR 45195 (SC) and Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act (as Amended) for the point.
That the Prosecution upon discharging the onus placed on it, the accused has a secondary onus of adducing some evidence which may render the prosecution’s case improbable and unlikely to be true and there create reasonable doubt. He referred us to the case of Ezeani V. State (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1686) 221 SC and Ikenne V. State (2018) LPELR 44695 (SC) for the point.
He stated that to prove the guilt of an accused person in an alleged offence he is charged with, the prosecution can prove same either by direct evidence of an eye witness, circumstantial evidence or voluntary confessional statement of the accused. He referred to the case of Nasiru V. State (2022) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1819) 165 SC for the point. That to succeed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must proof all the ingredients of the crime the accused is charged with.
That in the instant case, the prosecution must prove that the Appellant committed armed robbery and is a member of a secret cult prohibited under the law. That in proof of the crimes the appellant was charged with, the prosecution called one witness, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) and tendered documents marked as Exhibits A, B and C.
Learned counsel further submitted that from Exhibit A, it is clear that the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are present. That the Appellant is a principal offender and that participation must not be direct. Learned counsel argued that it is immaterial whether or not the Appellant was present at the scene of crime when the crime was committed, so long as he planned or counseled or procured, omitted to act or aided the commission of the crime, he is guilty as the main actors being a principal offender. He cited Section 7 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 37 Laws of Rivers State of Nigeria, 1999 for the definition of parties to an offence and contended that the appellant falls within the said Section 7 (1) of Criminal Code Law, having known that Fela’s gang robbed but refused to report them to the police. That not only that, the Appellant was letter arrested with a stolen item which he said he was to sell.
On count 3, learned counsel argued that it is clear from the provision of Section 1 of the Rivers State Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) (Amendment) Law No. 6 of 2018, that for the offence of membership and participation of secret cult, the prosecution must prove that the Appellant is a member of a secret cult; and that the secret cult exists as one in the list of cults are proscribed under the law. He referred us to Odon V. Amange (2008) LPELR – 4681 at 35-40 for the point.
Learned counsel pointed out that in Exhibit A, the Appellant admitted his membership of the secret cult and also explained the circumstances of his initiation into the secret cult. Learned counsel contended that the argument of the Appellant’s counsel that there was no sign, symbol or mark or anything else on the accused to signify that he belongs to and participated in secret cult activities as alleged is misconceived because Exhibit A positively established that the Appellant is a member of a secret cult called Vikings Confraternity which exists and proscribed under the scheduled to the law the Appellant was charged under. Learned counsel referred to Opeke V. State (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1758) 570 SC to argue that a confessional statement if made in line with the law is enough to solely be relied on to convict an accused. That the Respondent has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and then urged us to hold that there was no miscarriage of justice against the Appellant by the lower Court, and affirm its judgment which convicted the Appellant on counts 1, 2 and 3.
RESOLUTION OF THE SOLE ISSUE
In this appeal, the Appellant was arraigned before the trial Court on a 3 counts of charge of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap RII, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; and Membership of and Participation in Secret Cult Activities contrary to Section 1 of the Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) (Amended) No. 6, Laws of Rivers State.
This appeal will be determined on the sole issue formulated by the Appellant in his Brief of Argument, which is:
“Whether, having regard to the evidence produced by the prosecution on the facts of this case, the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant by the learned trial judge for the offences of armed robbery and membership of and participation in secret cult activities were proved as required by law, (Grounds 1, 2 & 3).”
In criminal proceedings, the duty or burden of proving the guilt of an accused is exclusively that of the prosecution, and this burden does not shift. For an accused to be convicted, the prosecution must cogently establish all the ingredients or elements of the offence(s) with which the accused/defendant is charged, or the case fails. The standard of proof required to be discharged by the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
For ease of reference, the provisions of the 2 laws under which the charges against the Appellant were founded will be reproduced hereunder. Starting with Section 1 (1) (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act LFN 2004, which covers counts 1 and 2, provides thus:
“1(1) any person who commits the offence of robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than twenty one years;
(2) if
(a) any offender mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section is armed with firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed;
(b) at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.”
On the other hand, Section 1 of the Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) (Amended) No. 6, Laws of Rivers State, which covers count 3 provides as follows:
“Any person who is a member of a secret cult, listed in the schedule to this law, whether or not he is in possession or control of an offensive weapon, commits an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.”
In Bozin V. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465 at 467, the Supreme Court outlined the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which must be proved in order to secure a conviction as follows:
“ i. That there was a robbery or series of robberies;
ii. That each robbery was an armed robbery.
iii. That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robberies.”
To sustain conviction with respect to the offence of armed robbery, the three (3) ingredients set out above must be established beyond reasonable doubt by the Respondent. In this appeal, the Respondent fielded in one witness as PW1 who was also the IPO of the case. PW1 testified and tendered the Confessional Statement of the Appellant which the lower Court admitted and marked “Exhibit A”.
Exhibit A contains admission by the Appellant of the commission of the offences for which he was charged. Although the Appellant under cross-examination unequivocally stated that his admission of the commission of the offences is “because the torturing was much”. See page 61 of the Record.
Going further, the lower Court made heavy weather on “Exhibit A” which formed the basis of its judgment in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. The law is trite that for a Court to depend solely on a confessional statement to convict an accused, it must be positive, unequivocal, direct and in addition, the ingredients of the offence(s) must be established by the prosecution, since an essential ingredient in the offence charged cannot be cured by a confession. See Abasi V. The State (1992) 8 NWLR Pt. 260, P. 383.
The Supreme Court Per Sanusi, JSC in Michael Taiye V. The State (2018) LPELR – 44466, P. 7, Paras. A-B succinctly captured the law in the following terms:
“…the learned counsel to the Appellant rightly submitted that the prosecution is not relieved of the burden to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt even where the accused person arrested at the scene of the crime made a confessional statement when or where there is a confessional statement…”
Though the Appellant testified and distant himself from the damaging contents of Exhibit A and also intimated that he admitted committing the offence because the torture was too much, the lower Court disregarded this evidence and proceeded to convict him on the same document. Where such allegation of torture is raised by an accused, the Court should as a matter of duty, consider and examine it, for failure to do so will lead to miscarriage of justice. In the instant appeal, I cannot find anything in the Record to show that the lower Court properly considered or examined the allegation of torture raised by the Appellant. Rather, what I saw is a baseless conclusion that the issue raised by the Appellant is an afterthought and of no moment.
A proper examination of Exhibit A shows that it is neither positive nor direct, as it does not establish the ingredients of the offences with which the Appellant was charged.
The prosecution did not call the complainants who were the victims and also eye witnesses in the case to testify. Circumstantial evidence is only considered in the absence of an eye witness. When the Court is relying on circumstantial evidence to convict an accused person, it must be for where direct evidence of eye witness is not available. The Court can infer from the facts that may, logically, tend to prove the guilt of an accused person from circumstantial evidence. However, great care must be taken to not fall into serious error. See Adepetu V. State (1998) NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC in Fatima Sani V. The State (2020).
I am of the firm view that the lower Court did not properly evaluate the evidence placed before it, before arriving at its decision in convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offences of robbery and membership of cultism. If the lower Court had considered the entirety of the evidence at its disposal, it would have realized that prosecution failed to establish all the ingredients of the said offences to corroborate Exhibit A, which the Appellant retracted.
It is pertinent to state that the prosecution did not deny or controverted the fact the Appellant was tortured into making Exhibit A.
From the clear circumstances of this case, there exist in my mind serious doubts as to the guilt of the appellant. It is trite that where in a criminal proceeding a doubt is cast in the mind of the Court, it must be resolved in favour of the accused person. This sole issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant.
In the final analysis, this appeal is adjudged meritorious and is hereby allowed. The judgment of the trial Court delivered on 27th July, 2021 in Charge No. PHC/69/CR/2021 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Appellant is hereby discharged and acquitted. He is to be released from the correctional center where he is serving both the 21 years imprisonment and life sentence forthwith.
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA. There is merit in this appeal and it should be allowed. It is allowed by me and the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 27th July, 2021 in Charge No. PHC/691CR/2021 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant is discharged and acquitted.
OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA.
I agree with the reasoning and order in judgment and which I hereby adopt as mine.
Appearances:
D. Atogbo, Esq. with him, M. C. Wobidi, Esq. For Appellant(s)
G. U. Amannah, Esq. (Principal State Counsel) Ministry of Justice, Rivers State. For Respondent(s)
