LAWRENCE v. STATE (2022)

LAWRENCE v. STATE

(2022)LCN/17038(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, May 27, 2022

CA/IL/81C/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Isaiah Olufemi Akeju Justice of the Court of Appeal

Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

AJAYI LAWRENCE APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE POSITION OF SECTION 2(2), (7) AND (14) OF THE SECRET CULT AND SECRET SOCIETIES PROHIBITION LAW OF KWARA STATE ON SECRET SOCIETY

It is important to reproduce the provision of Sections 2(2), (7) and (14) of the Secret Cult and Secret Societies Prohibition Law of Kwara State as follows:
Section 2(2) provides thus:
No person shall –
(a) Associate with a secret cult or secret society; or
(b) Join a secret cult or secret society as a member; or
(c) Give financial or material support to a secret cult or secret society; or
(d) Participate in any activity of a secret cult or secret society.
Section 7 provides thus:
Any person who –
(a) Keeps in his possession or custody, or under his control any insignia, document or other property of a secret cult or secret society; or
(b) Wears any insignia or is marked with any sign or symbol or tattoo of a secret cult or secret society; or
(c) Uses any other object associated with a secret cult or secret society shall be presumed to be a member of the secret cult or secret society, unless the contrary is proved.
Section 14 provides thus: Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 2 or 8 commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years but not exceeding 14 years and also to a fine of N50,000.00. PER AMADI, J.CA.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON CONFESSIONS

The law is that there is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession… Confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value than other proofs, Oche vs. The State (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1027) 214; Nwosu vs. The State (2004) 15 NWLR (PT.897) 446. (Underlined for emphasis). PER AMADI, J.CA.

WHETHER OR NOT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT NEUTRALIZES ALL OTHER STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH IT

In Kolade vs the State (2015) LPELR 41662 where the Court held:
“Indeed, I would say that once properly admitted and is believed, a Confessional Statement nullifies or neutralizes all other statements inconsistent with it.” Per Okoronkwo, JCA.
Also in Oseni vs The State (2012) LPELR 7833 where the Court held
“There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Such a confession is admissible. A confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value than all other proofs. A confession is more often denied or retracted. The denial or retraction is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide what weight could be attached to it. Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt.1038) pg.30 Ukpong v. Queen (No.1) (1961) 1 SCNLR 23 Idowu v. The State (2000) SC (pt.11) Pg.50.” Per Adekeye, JSC. Again Tobi, JSC held in Magaji vs Nigerian Army (2008) LPELR 1814.
“A confessional statement unequivocally confesses to the commission of the offence charged.” PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal herein is against the judgment of the Kwara State High Court, sitting in Ilorin, (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) delivered on 15th day of April, 2019 by Hon. Justice S.D. Kawu in Suit No. KWS/46c/2016.

The facts leading to this appeal are that on 26/5/2016, the PW2 (Inspector Stanley) and his team were on stop and search operation along Ofa/Erinle Road in Kwara State when a commercial vehicle and its occupants were stopped and searched. In the process, a locally made pistol with four (4) live cartridges and charms (exhibits1-8) were recovered from the Appellant’s bag.

The Appellant was arraigned and tried on a 2(two) count charge. The first is for being illegally in possession of a firearm without a license or lawful authority to carry same punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Robbery and Firearms Special Provisions Act Cap R II LFN 2004 and the second charge for being a member of the Eiye Secret society punishable under Section 1 of the Secret Society Law, Laws of Kwara State.

At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge convicted the Appellant on the two charges and sentenced him to two years imprisonment with the option of N20,000.00 fine in respect of the first count of illegal possession of firearms and to ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine of fifty thousand (N50,000) in respect of the second charge of being a member of a secret society.

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the Appellant appealed to this Court and by an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 3/11/2021 raised eight (8) grounds of appeal as follows:
GROUND ONE:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his lordship wrongfully admitted the Appellant’s statement as Exhibit P9 and attached probative value to it.
GROUND TWO:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in relying on Exhibit P10 in deciding whether to believe the evidence of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of Exhibit P2 or the denial of the Appellant that it was not found on him.
GROUND THREE:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his lordship held as follows: – “From the evidence of PW2 which was never shaken under cross-examination and the contents of Exhibit P9 and P10, I am satisfied that on 26/5/2016 along Erin-Ile/Offa road, the accused was found in possession of a locally made pistol admitted as Exhibit P2 before the Court”.
GROUND FOUR:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his lordship held thus: “I am of the firm view that the state proved its case of accused’s membership of Eiye cult beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of the piece of evidence of PW2 and Exhibit P9, the locally made pistol admitted as Exhibit P2, which the Court of Appeal in unreported case of OLASILE FATAI V THE STATE, Appeal No. CA/IL/C.32/2017 delivered on 28th May, 2018 held to be a “…… one of the weapons of choice of cultist in Nigerian higher institution.
GROUND FIVE:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that; it is instructive to note that in his defence before the Court the accused did not specifically deny his membership of Eiye secret cult”.
GROUND SIX:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his lordship relied on the tattoo of bird on the body of the Appellant to support the conclusion that the Appellant is a member of Eiye confraternity.
GROUND SEVEN:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when His Lordship held that contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not material to the determination of the case.
GROUND EIGHT:
The judgment is altogether unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regards to the evidence led.

The record of appeal was transmitted on 20/8/021. The Appellant’s brief of Argument was filled on 3/11/2021. The Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 8/2/2022. The Appellant filed his reply brief on 17/2/2022 while the appeal was heard on 01/03/2022.

In his brief of argument, the learned counsel for the Appellant raised 2 (two) issues for determination. Thus:
1. Whether or not, the learned trial Judge was right to have admitted the Appellant’s statement to the police as Exhibit P9, and to attach probative value to it.
2. Whether or not, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

In respect of issue one, counsel submitted that the learned trial Court was wrong in admitting exhibit P9 and giving it probative value, hence the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant based on the same document. That there were evidence of torture, threat to shoot, and beating of the Appellant with cutlass which amount to oppression within the meaning of Section 29(5) of the Evidence Act which were not challenged under cross-examination.

Continuing counsel argued that there is evidence in the trial within trial by the father of the Appellant that; “when the accused was brought out there were wounds and injury on his body and I was perplexed” – at page 90 of the record. That the injury is as a result of the beating he received with cutlass while trying to make him sign exhibit P9. That the respondent never deemed it fit to challenge this evidence under cross-examination. That the position of the law is trite that where the piece of evidence is not challenged or contradicted, the Court is bound to act on it. That where an accused person was not cross-examined or his claim of being tortured before the statement was extracted from him would cast serious doubt on the voluntariness of the confessional statement counsel referred to Nalado v State (2019) 13NWLR (Pt. 1688) 1.

In respect of issue 2 (two) counsel argued that by Section 15 of the Secret Cults and Secret Societies (prohibition) law 2016 a secret cult or secret society includes a cult or secret association, group or body of persons (whether registered or not);

That uses secret signs, oath, rites or symbols and which is formed to promote a cause, the purpose or Part of the purpose of which is to satisfy the interest of its members.

Counsel submits that in this case, there is no evidence led that the activities of Eiye Secret Society is not known to the public at larger or that the names of its members are kept secret and that the Eiye Secret Society is pursuing activities which are illegally, inimical, destructive or unlawful.

Furthermore, that the Appellant gave evidence that he made 2(two) statements, the first being on 26/5/2016 which was voluntary and the second on 27/5/2016 which was involuntary by reason of the fact that he was asked to copy the statement already written by the police. Counsel submitted that this was established as the prosecution did not deny or confront him on this point.

Counsel submitted that the failure of the prosecution to tender the first statement of the Appellant made on 26/5/2016 is fatal to their case, counsel referred to the cases of Olayinka V State (2007) 3 SCNJ 53, Ogudo V State (2011) 18 NWLR (pt 1278) 1.

Apart from the foregoing, it is also the contention of counsel that the trial Court was wrong in using the content of exhibit P10 (Motion to bail) to reach the conclusion that exhibit P9 was made voluntarily. That exhibit P10 was not intended to contradict the evidence of the Appellant. That it was not made by the Appellant therefore, he cannot be convicted by its content. That the reference by the trial Court to it in finding the Appellant guilty is against Section 232 of the Evidence Act. Counsel urged the Court to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment in this matter.

The learned counsel for the Respondent in his brief of argument raised a sole issue for determination thus:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution proved the offences of Membership of Eiye Secret Cult Confraternity and illegal Possession of Firearms beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. (Relates to Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal).
Counsel argued this sole issue under 2 (two) subheadings.

The first is in relation to the membership of secret cult fraternity. Counsel argued that exhibit P9 is a free and voluntary confession which detailed how and when the Appellant was initiated into the cult fraternity and his other members and rival cult members who wanted to kill him and his escape to Oshogbo. Counsel submitted that a confession alone without any corroborative evidence is enough to ground a conviction as long as the Court is satisfied that the confession is true referring to Gbenga Osho v. State (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt.1637) 474 and Stephen v. State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 135) 153 AT 1670.

Continuing, counsel argued that the Appellant confessed to being a member of Eiye cult fraternity, had the mark or insignia of a bird on his left arm which is the sign of membership of the fraternity; that the cogent and direct evidence of the PW2 and PW3 the Police Officers that searched the Appellant, recovered the pistol with live cartridges and investigated the matter, coupled with the pistol which is a weapon of choice of cult found with the Appellant made the case of the prosecution as being proved beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.

On illegal possession of firearms, counsel argued that to sustain a conviction for the offence of illegal possession of firearm, the essential ingredients are –
(1) That the accused was found in possession of firearms.
(2) That the firearms were within the meaning of the Act.
(3) That the accused person has no license to possess the firearms.

Counsel referred to Abdullahi v. FRN (2018) LPELR-44719 and Momodu v. State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 447) 67.

Counsel submitted that there is evidence of PW2 and PW3 that at the time of arrest of the Appellant locally made pistol (exhibit P2) and four live cartridges (exhibits P3 – P6) were found in Appellant’s possession. Exhibit P9 (Appellant’s confessional statement corroborated the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Counsel further referred to paragraph 50 of exhibit 10 (Motion for bail) where the Appellant’s father deposed on oath that “he was given the gun by a friend in order to protect himself from being attacked by members of the secret cult. Counsel submitted that the foregoing has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was in possession of exhibit P2, a locally made gun.

Continuing, counsel argued that any lethal barreled weapon of any description qualifies as a firearm provided it can shoot a pellet. That PW2 and PW3 who are Policemen Inspector and Sergeant gave cogent and unchallenged evidence that exhibit P2 is a firearm that the Appellant failed to show that he is licensed to possess exhibit P2 (locally made gun). Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this appeal.

The learned counsel for the Appellant filed Appellant’s reply brief on 17/02/2022. I have carefully read through it and there is no reply on any points of law, rather it is a further argument of counsel, it is therefore, discountenanced.

RESOLUTION
The learned counsel for the Appellant donated 2 (two) issues for determination of this appeal, while the learned counsel for the Respondent donated one issue. I adopt the 2 (two) issues as raised by the counsel for the Appellant. I shall therefore, treat the 2 (two) issues in the resolution of this appeal as follows:
Issue one is; whether or not, the learned trial Judge was right to have admitted the Appellant’s statement to the police as Exhibit P9, and to attach probative value to it.

The said exhibit P9 is the statement of the Appellant. It is a confessional statement. On tendering it, the learned counsel for the Appellant objected on the ground that the statement was not voluntarily made by the Appellant, whereupon the trial Judge ordered for a trial within trial and at the end held that the statement was made by the Appellant in his own handwriting and was made voluntarily, therefore a true confession by the Appellant.

Another issue raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the trial Court made reference to exhibit P10 and used same in convicting the Appellant. The law is trite and settled that a Court is entitled to look at the documents in his file and form an opinion therefrom.

In view of the foregoing, the learned trial Judge was right in his decision that exhibit F9 was made voluntarily and gave it probative value. This issue is resolved against the Appellant.

In respect of issue two, that is; whether or not, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

It is important to reproduce the provision of Sections 2(2), (7) and (14) of the Secret Cult and Secret Societies Prohibition Law of Kwara State as follows:
Section 2(2) provides thus:
No person shall –
(a) Associate with a secret cult or secret society; or
(b) Join a secret cult or secret society as a member; or
(c) Give financial or material support to a secret cult or secret society; or
(d) Participate in any activity of a secret cult or secret society.
Section 7 provides thus:
Any person who –
(a) Keeps in his possession or custody, or under his control any insignia, document or other property of a secret cult or secret society; or
(b) Wears any insignia or is marked with any sign or symbol or tattoo of a secret cult or secret society; or
(c) Uses any other object associated with a secret cult or secret society shall be presumed to be a member of the secret cult or secret society, unless the contrary is proved.
Section 14 provides thus: Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 2 or 8 commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years but not exceeding 14 years and also to a fine of N50,000.00.

From exhibit P9, the Appellant confessed thus:
“…Actually I am a member of Eiye secret cult confraternity which was initiated in year 2007 to 2008 by one Cleff in Lagos. I was given the Pistol by tope who is our No. 1 and I am No. 2. The Pistol has been in my possession since 2013 and I kept it at an uncompleted building at Iree. The said Pistol is for my personal protection. The following people are my members in Ilorin thus:
1. Lati star who is No. 4 position in the group of eiye.
2. Kapo who is No. 7 position in the group of eiye.
3. Waheed a.k.a wede he did not have any position.
4. O.P. he was No. 5 postion in the group of eiye.
5. Basun Lanre he did not have any position there.
6. boboo he also did not have any position there.
I was living at Ilorin before the incident of cultist rivalry fight occurred on April 3rd 2016. That was when our able leader Bayo Ajia was killed. During that time one Murphy…and Deji…wanted to kill me that was why I ran to Osogbo to stay with one of our relative by name Oluwabiyi…
During the time of my initiation, I was given garri and rice…it was my father that asked me to go and stay in Osogbo… I was given No. 2 by Tope. I have the mark of eiye on my left hand of my shoulder. The mark is a picture of eiye cult. The four cartridges were given to me along with the Pistol…”
(Underlining for emphasis).

I have held above that a confessional statement without more is capable of sustaining a conviction. The above confession of the Appellant supplied all the ingredients of the charges in this case. Not only that, the insignia of a bird was seen by the trial Judge as a tattoo on the body of the Appellant.

This Court per Ndukwe Anyanwu JCA, in the unreported judgment in Appeal No: CA/IL/33C/2020 in Tunde Zubair v The State delivered on Monday the 22nd day of March, 2021 held thus:
“…The Appellant also stated that he was a member of Eiye Cult. The Appellant said he just attended the Cult programme at the weekend in Kwara Polytechnic. He also said that he had the tattoo of a bird which is the sign of their Eiye Cult.
…The Appellant himself gave the name of the person who initiated him and when. He also gave the names of other cult members in Ilorin and Abuja.
The law is that there is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession… Confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value than other proofs, Oche vs. The State (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1027) 214; Nwosu vs. The State (2004) 15 NWLR (PT.897) 446. (Underlined for emphasis).

I hold that the trial Court was on solid ground when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant. I have nothing more to add. This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant. I hold that this appeal is lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly.

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft form, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, JCA.
I must lend my voice to some issues raised in this appeal.

The Appellant retracted his statement Exhibit 9 arguing that it was made involuntarily. However, the trial Judge held after a trial within trial that it was voluntarily made. It is interesting to note that the Appellant wrote his statement himself. In it, a lot of information only the Appellant would be ceased with was exposed in it (Exhibit 9). It is true that an accused can be convicted on his Confessional Statement alone.
In Kolade vs the State (2015) LPELR 41662 where the Court held:
“Indeed, I would say that once properly admitted and is believed, a Confessional Statement nullifies or neutralizes all other statements inconsistent with it.” Per Okoronkwo, JCA.
Also in Oseni vs The State (2012) LPELR 7833 where the Court held
“There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Such a confession is admissible. A confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value than all other proofs. A confession is more often denied or retracted. The denial or retraction is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide what weight could be attached to it. Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt.1038) pg.30 Ukpong v. Queen (No.1) (1961) 1 SCNLR 23 Idowu v. The State (2000) SC (pt.11) Pg.50.” Per Adekeye, JSC.

Again Tobi, JSC held in Magaji vs Nigerian Army (2008) LPELR 1814.
“A confessional statement unequivocally confesses to the commission of the offence charged.”

It is pertinent to also note that his Confessional Statement matches what the real picture is.

The Appellant also has a tattoo of the Eiye Cult on his arm. This without let confirms his membership of the Eiye cult.
This alone has corroborated all other material evidence placed before the Court.

The Respondent has proved the charges against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I agree with that and also hold that this appeal is without merit. This appeal is therefore, dismissed. I also affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment of my learned brother, KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, JCA, I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein. I dismiss the appeal and I abide by the consequential order.