MR. PETER AMROMANOR v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
(2019)LCN/12886(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 19th day of March, 2019
CA/B/191C/2018
RATIO
EVIDENCE:WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED DISCLOSES A PRIMA FACIE CASE
“The law, as settled by many decisions of the Supreme Court, is that evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case, when if uncontroverted and believed, it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused person. See K v. Coker 20 NLR 62; Ajidagba v. Inspector General of Police (1958) SCNLR 60; Mr. Donald O. Ikomi & 2 Ors. v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) 340; Duru v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24 and Atano v. A.G; Bendel State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 201.” PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A
ACTION: NO CASE SUBMISSION
“In the case of Kenny Martins & 3 Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1637) 523 at 543, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; the Supreme Court defined the meaning of a no-case submission as follows: It is settled law that a no-case submission means that there is no evidence, which, even if believed by the Court, could sustain a conviction. In other words, that the prosecution, at the close of its case has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused person. See also Ohuka v. State (No.1) (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 539; Adeyemi v. State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 1 and Ekwunugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1111) 630…The law is that when an accused person makes a no-case submission, at that stage, the trial Court in its decision is not expected to evaluate the evidence before it; nor is it to determine the credibility of the witnesses who have testified.” PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A
JUSTICES
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. PETER AMROMANOR Appellant(s)
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Respondent(s)
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The appellant is the 1st defendant in Charge No. A/EFCC/1C/2014. The 2nd defendant in the said Charge is one Andrew Boji Nkwor. They were arraigned before the High Court of Delta State, Asaba Judicial Division, sitting at Asaba charged with the following offences:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 1ST COUNT
Conspiracy contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code, Cap. C21 Vol. 1, Laws of Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES
MR. PETER AMROMANOH ‘M’ being the Executive Secretary of Delta State Scholarship Board and MS ELOHO OTIEDE F being the Chief Accountant of the Delta State Scholarship Board sometimes between 2008 to 2012 at Asaba in the Asaba Judicial Division of the High Court of Delta State did agree or conspire amongst yourselves to commit felony, to wit: Stealing.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE- 2ND COUNT
Stealing contrary to Section 390(9) of the Criminal Code, Cap. C21, Vol. 1, Laws of Delta State of Nigeria 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
MR. PETER AMROMANOH ‘M’ being the
Executive Secretary of Delta State Scholarship Board and MS ELOHO OTIEDE ‘F’ being the Chief Accountant of the Delta State Scholarship Board sometimes between 2008 to 2012 at Asaba in the Asaba Judicial Division of the High Court of Delta State, stole the sum of ?24,185,950.84k (Twenty Four Million, One Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Naira, Eighty Four Kobo) being money meant for the payment of Bursary to Delta State Students, Delta Origin studying in various institution of learning in the 2008 to 2010 sessions.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 3RD COUNT
Stealing contrary to Section 390 (9) of the Criminal Code, Cap. C21, Vol. 1, Laws of the Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
MR. PETER AMROMANOH ‘M’ being the Executive Secretary of Delta State Scholarship Board and MS ELOHO OTIEDE ‘F’ being the Chief Accountant of the Delta State Scholarship Board sometimes between 2008 to 2012 at Asaba in the Asaba Judicial Division of the High Court of Delta State, stole the sum of ?31,720,000.00 (Thirty One Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand naira), being money meant for the payment of Bursary to Delta State Students, Delta State Origin, studying in various institution of learning in the 2008 to 2010 sessions by fraudulently paying same to ghost students which you knew, not to be true and thus fraudulently converting the said sum to your own use.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 4TH COUNT
Stealing contrary to Section 390 (9) of the Criminal Code, Cap. C21, Vol. 1, Laws of the Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
MR. PETER AMROMANOH ‘M’ being the Executive Secretary of Delta State Scholarship Board and MS. ELOHO OTIEDE ‘F’ being the Chief Accountant of the Delta State Scholarship Board sometimes between 2008 to 2012 at Asaba in the Asaba Judicial Division of the High Court of Delta State, stole the sum of 36,000,000.00 (Thirty Six Million Naira) by approving the sum above the approval limit as an Executive Secretary of the Board, that the said Executive Secretary exceeded the limit ranging mostly from ?1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) to 36,000,000.00 (Thirty Six Million Naira) that the said approval was made through the Board?s UBA Account Number 1001641148 and Fidelity Bank Plc Account Number 4110006410 in the name of the Executive Secretary MR. PETER AMROMANOH and the Chief Accountant of the Board MS. ELOHO OTIEDE and the said money/sum was fraudulently converted to their own use.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 5TH COUNT
Stealing contrary to Section 390 (9) of the Criminal Code, Cap. C21, Vol. 1, Laws of the Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
MR. PETER AMROMANOH ?M? being the Executive Secretary of Delta State Scholarship Board sometimes 2008 to 2012 at Asaba in the Asaba Judicial Division of the High Court of Delta State, stole the sum of 77,201,961.62k (Seventy Seven Million, Two Hundred and One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty One Naira, Sixty Two Kobo) meant for pecuniary resources property of the Delta State Scholarship Board which said sum was fraudulently converted to your own use.
The two defendants pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial whereby the prosecution called and fielded four (4) witnesses and tendered some exhibits. At the close of the prosecution?s case, learned counsel for the appellant made a no-case submission, which was overruled by the trial Court in a ruling delivered on the 23rd day of January, 2018. This appeal is against the said decision and it was filed after the appellant obtained leave of the trial Court on the 20th day of March, 2018.
The appellant distilled a sole issue for determination in his brief filed on 30/11/2018 as follows:
Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant (2nd defendant) requiring some explanation from him considering the charge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the case of Ubanatu v. C.O.P (2000) 74 LRCN 72 and submitted that for a no case submission to be overruled, the trial Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case has been made against the appellant.
On the ingredient of conspiracy, learned counsel referred the Court to the case of Skymmo v. State (2011) 196 LRCN 199 while in respect of the ingredients of stealing, he referred to the case of Adejobi v. State (2011) 198 LRCN 41. He contended that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence which prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences of conspiracy and stealing.
Learned counsel urged the Court to resolve the lone issue in favour of the appellant, to allow the appeal and to discharge and acquit the appellant.
In his brief, filed on 11/12/2018, learned counsel for the respondent formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
Whether from the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, the prosecution has not established a prima facie case of conspiracy, stealing, fraudulent conversion and authorising payments above statutory limits against the appellant to warrant this Honourable Court to up held (sic) the ruling of the lower Court as contained in the records of proceeding pg. 995 ? 996 Vol. 2.
He argued that Section 303(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 has made provision for a no-case submission and the provision ?appears to be a restatement and expansion of the principles of no-case submission enunciated in the locus classicus case of Ibeziako v. C.O.P. (1963) NNLR 88 at 94?. On the principles governing a no-case submission, learned counsel also referred to the case of Onagoruwa v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 49 at 56; Ubanatu v. C.O.P. (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 634) 115 at 141; Suberu v. State (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.11176) 494 at 511 and Igabele v. State (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt.896) 304 at 331.
Learned counsel copiously referred to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and contended that prima facie case has been made against the appellant. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
The law, as settled by many decisions of the Supreme Court, is that evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case, when if uncontroverted and believed, it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused person. See K v. Coker 20 NLR 62; Ajidagba v. Inspector General of Police (1958) SCNLR 60; Mr. Donald O. Ikomi & 2 Ors. v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) 340; Duru v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24 and Atano v. A.G; Bendel State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 201.
In the case of Kenny Martins & 3 Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1637) 523 at 543, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; the Supreme Court defined the meaning of a no-case submission as follows:
It is settled law that a no-case submission means that there is no evidence, which, even if believed by the Court, could sustain a conviction. In other words, that the prosecution, at the close of its case has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused person. See also Ohuka v. State (No.1) (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 539; Adeyemi v. State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 1 and Ekwunugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1111) 630.
A no-case submission should succeed if:-
(a) there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence; and/or
(b) the evidence that might have linked the accused with the offence has been so discredited under cross-examination that no reasonable court could convict on it.Kenny Martins & 3 Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra). See also Ibeziako v. Commissioner of Police (1963) NWLR 88; (1963) 1 SCNLR 99; Daboh v. the State (1977) 5 SC (Reprint) 122; Sunday Agbo v. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1365) 377 and Commissioner of Police v. Amuta (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1556) 379.
A no-case submission can also be made and upheld where the evidence, at the close of the prosecution?s case, is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable Court or tribunal can safely convict on it. See Dele Fagoriola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1383) 322 at 337 per Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC.
The respondent called four (4) witnesses ? PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, whose evidence spans pages 931 to 991 of the record of appeal. In respect of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned counsel for the respondent stated in his written address in the trial Court, particularly on pages 918 to 919 of the record of appeal, as follows:
The prosecution led evidence through PW1, 2, 3 & 4. PW3 Joy Idoko is one of the prosecution witness. She in her evidence on 8/12/15, testimony and tendered various documents and she also demonstrated the said documents before the Court. Critical evaluation of the said oral and documentary pieces of evidence go to show there was a link prima facie evidence.
a) That the 1st defendant is the alter ego of the Delta State Scholarship Board as the Executive Secretary.
b) That the 1st and 2nd defendants are the sole signatory to the account of which the money was paid out to Delta State origin Scholarship Board in High Institutions.
c) The 1st defendant stated in his statements that some cash withdrawn were used to settle contractors and running of the office above his approving limits.
d) That the prosecution led evidence vide Exhibit before the Court, statement of account with due report and others Bank details as well as letters from some institutions to the effect some names were infused into the list and thus not students of those institution for which bursary was paid out to them. The Board have the means of carrying out verification of students and it was shown that if there were some names that are not students. It is duty of the board to have removed such names. These discrepancies call for explanation.
The ingredients of the offences with the appellant is charged are well-settled and do not require me to restate them in this judgment.
The law is that when an accused person makes a no-case submission, at that stage, the trial Court in its decision is not expected to evaluate the evidence before it; nor is it to determine the credibility of the witnesses who have testified.
The trial Court is merely to decide whether there is evidence linking the person accused with the commission of the offence charged and, thereby, requiring some explanation from him. See Kenny Martins & Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra).
I have read the testimonies of the witnesses fielded by the prosecution and the exhibits tendered by them. If, for any reason, the said oral and documentary evidence is believed by the trial Court, the appellant and his co-defendant have some explanation to make. Put differently, the evidence adduced by the prosecution prima facie makes a case against the defendants and this requires them to enter their defence.
In view of the fact that the prosecution has made out a case warranting an explanation from the appellant, the lone issue in this appeal is hereby resolved against the appellant. This appeal is bereft of any merit and it is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
The decision of the trial Court contained in the ruling delivered on 23/01/2018 by Hon. Justice P. N. Azinge is hereby affirmed.
The appellant is hereby ordered to proceed forthwith to enter his defence in the trial Court.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have read before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother M.A.A. ADUMEIN JCA.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion outlined in the said judgment to the effect that the Appeal lacks merit.
I also dismiss the said appeal and I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment.
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN JCA.
I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion therein.
The decision of the trial Court delivered on 23/1/18 is hereby also affirmed by me.
Appearances:
Chief A. P. A. Ogefere with him, J. I. Mordi, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Sir Steve Odiase For Respondent(s)
