NDUKWU v. STATE
(2022)LCN/17196(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, August 01, 2022
CA/OW/66C/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Wakili Jauro Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
UCHENNA NDUKWU APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN CONVICT SOLEY ON A PLEA OF GUILTY
In RABIU V. STATE (2004) FWLR (Pt. 238) 521 – it was held that a Court of law has a duty to warn itself of the danger of convicting solely on a plea of guilty. Submits that a plea of guilty is not and cannot be conclusive proof of guilty in law.
It is my view that in a situation such as the present one, it was incumbent on the Court below to warn itself of the danger of convicting an accused solely on his plea of guilty. This is because a plea of guilty is not and cannot be a conclusive proof of guilt with regards to capital offence in law. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHAT A JUDGEMENT SHOULD CONTAIN
A judgment of a Court should fundamentally contain a brief statement of the type of action, setting out the claim or offence in full; a review of the evidence led; appraisal and evaluation of such evidence; making findings of fact therefrom, consideration of the legal submission made; and conclusion. OYEDELE V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 47576 (SC).
From records, the Court below did not comply with the above requirements.
The evidence available to the Court, both oral and documentary were not appraised. The evidence was not evaluated. After the Court below entered a plea of not guilty, and tried the Appellant, it failed to indicate upon what grounds it convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death.
I wonder why the Court below could write a four-sentence remark in its judgment of the 18th of February, 2013 – pages 263 – 300. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE IT
The law is elementary that the trial judge is required to evaluate and make specific findings of facts, before coming to a conclusion.
Failure to do so will not only vitiate its conclusion, but will give this Court power to influence and evaluate such evidence and make proper findings as long as the findings do not depend on the credibility of witnesses.
In LAGGA V. SARHUNA (2008) LPELR 1740 (SC), it was held inter alia that where the evaluation of evidence would require the determination of the credibility of witnesses (as in the present case) the Appellate Court cannot evaluate. The only option in such a situation is an order for retrial.
It is no gainsaying, that the Court below failed woefully to evaluate the evidence before it and if this Honurable Court would do it, it must inevitably entail the determination of the credibility of witnesses who testified in the Court below. In the present case, six witnesses testified for the prosecution and eight witnesses testified for the defence (a total of 14 witnesses).
In OMOSAYE V. STATE (2014) LPELR 22059 (SC), the Apex Court held inter alia, that:
“….the Appellant was charged with the offence of murder which carries a serious consequence – death. More injustice will be done if the order for retrial is not granted having regard to the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution.” PER PEMU, J.C.A.
FACTORS THAT THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER BEFORE ORDERING A RETRIAL
Before ordering a retrial, the Appellate Court must consider the following viz:
1. That there has been such an error in law or an irregularity in procedure which renders the trial a nullity.
2. That apart from the error of law or irregularity in procedure, the evidence before the Court discloses a substantive case against the accused.
3. That there are no special circumstances which would make it unjust, to order a retrial.
4. That the offence for which the accused is charged and their consequences are serious in nature.
5. That to refuse an order of retrial would occasion a greater injustice. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Owerri Imo State, delivered on the 18th of February, 2013 in Charge No HOW/51C/2011, wherein the Appellant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by hanging.
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the Court for murder. He pleaded guilty to the Charge, but the Court however, recorded a plea of “not guilty”. The prosecution had called six (6) witnesses and tendered exhibits, one of which was the confessional statement of the Accused person (the Appellant herein).
PW1 had testified that the Appellant called her husband, Augustine Ndukwu on phone and asked him to come home that his house was on fire, the husband left for his home but never came back. The Appellant confessed to PW1 at the Police Station that the 2nd and 7th Accused persons used him to kill Chief Augustine Ndukwu.
The Appellant had denied the crime but later made contradictory confessional statements.
The Appellant had testified in his defence in Igbo language as DW4.
At the end of the case, the Court below convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death on the strength of his plea of guilty.
Dissatisfied the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 11th day of March, 2013, amended with the leave of Court on the 11th of February, 2021 with four grounds of Appeal.
The Appellant filed his brief of argument on the 24th of June, 2021 but same was deemed filed on the 7th of March 2022. It is settled by Philip Ibekwe Esq.
The Respondent’s brief was filed on the 21st of February 2022. It is settled by C. O. Chukwumaeze Esq.
The Appellant filed a Reply Brief on the 2nd of March 2022.
On the 8th day of June, 2022, the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument.
The Appellant proffered three (3) issues for determination from the grounds of Appeal. They are:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. “Whether the trial Court was right to have convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death on the ground that he pleaded guilty to a capital offence.
2. Whether in view of the circumstance of this case, the finding that the Appellant stabbed the deceased to death, the conviction and sentence by the trial Court are not altogether unwarranted, unreasonable and unsupported, having regard to the evidence before the Court.
3. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it by the Prosecution and the Appellant before convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
On his part, the Respondent proffered one issue for determination viz:
“Whether by the evidence and exhibits before the Court, the trial Court was not right in convicting the Appellant on his plea of guilty”.
SUBMISSION OF ISSUES
Issue 1:
The Appellant submits that in capital offences like murder as in this instant case, if the accused pleads guilty to the charge, by convention, the Court enters a plea of not guilty on his behalf and the case is heard and judgment entered as if he pleaded not guilty. He cites NKIE V. FRN (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 754) 178 at 188.
The Appellant submits that in the present case, the Court asked no questions to know whether the accused person understood the charge read and explained to him. Indeed, the consequences, nature and implication of the charge.
He submits that the trial Court erred in law when after it entered a plea for not guilty and hearing evidence from the prosecution and the Appellant to turn around and convict the Appellant summarily.
Issue 2:
He submits that it is the duty of the trial Court to act on only admissible evidence before it. That there is no duty to challenge an inadmissible evidence because it is not even evidence properly before the Court. He cites BUKOLA V. STATE (2018) ALL FWLR (Pt. 943) at 443 at 584.
He further submits that it is trite that a Court may convict an accused on his extra-judicial confession upon condition that such statement must be properly proved to have been freely and voluntarily made, unequivocal, direct and positive to warrant and sustain a finding of guilt – ONWE V. STATE (2018) 84 EJSC S7 AT 94.
Submits that the Court did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced before it, having entered a plea of not guilty for the Appellant. Had the Court properly evaluated the evidence, it would have discharged and acquitted the Appellant.
Issue 3:
Submits that by the provisions of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Imo State, every judgment must contain the points of determination and the reasons for the judgment; also cites SOATAN V. STATE (2018) ALL FWLR (Pt. 929) 256 at 276 – 277.
He further submits that the finding of guilt and conviction should be based on the inference drawn from the facts processed by the prosecution and all the admissible evidence relied upon against the appellant rather than his plea of guilt.
That the proper manner to evaluate evidence of parties to a case is to place the evidence side by side on an imaginary scale and weigh them to infer which one outweighs the other in terms of probative value. NWABUEZE V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2018) 95 EJSC 98 Q 117.
RESOLUTION
Indeed, the sole issue for determination proffered by the Respondent is one that would determine this appeal one way or the other for reasons to be proffered later on in this judgment.
Was the Court below right to have convicted and sentenced the appellant to death on grounds that he pleaded guilty to a capital offence?
Generally, when an accused pleads guilty to an offence charged, the Court can proceed to convict him. However, in cases that attract capital punishment, the Court would enter a plea of “NOT GUILTY” and call on the prosecution to prove its case as required by law. TOBBY V. STATE (2001) LPELR – 3252 (SC).
From records, six witnesses testified for the prosecution. The Appellant testified as DW4. Other witnesses testified for the defence.
Exhibits were tendered.
The judgment of the Court below reads as follows:
“In the case of the 1st accused, Uchenna Ndukwu he pleaded guilty aforesaid. Not much can be said about him, but to clearly and legally convict him as charged. He is therefore found guilty as charged”.
I wonder why not much can be said about the Appellant in a situation where the prosecution called six witnesses and the defence called eight witnesses and exhibits tendered as well as the Appellant’s confessional statement.
The Appellant had argued that the Court below erred when after it entered a plea of not guilty and hearing evidence from the prosecution and the Appellant, to turn around in its judgment to convict and sentence the Appellant on his plea of guilty without placing any reliance or probative value and/or weighing the evidence adduced before it by the prosecution who has the burden under Section 131 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011, to prove his case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
In RABIU V. STATE (2004) FWLR (Pt. 238) 521 – it was held that a Court of law has a duty to warn itself of the danger of convicting solely on a plea of guilty. Submits that a plea of guilty is not and cannot be conclusive proof of guilty in law.
It is my view that in a situation such as the present one, it was incumbent on the Court below to warn itself of the danger of convicting an accused solely on his plea of guilty. This is because a plea of guilty is not and cannot be a conclusive proof of guilt with regards to capital offence in law.
A judgment of a Court should fundamentally contain a brief statement of the type of action, setting out the claim or offence in full; a review of the evidence led; appraisal and evaluation of such evidence; making findings of fact therefrom, consideration of the legal submission made; and conclusion. OYEDELE V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 47576 (SC).
From records, the Court below did not comply with the above requirements.
The evidence available to the Court, both oral and documentary were not appraised. The evidence was not evaluated. After the Court below entered a plea of not guilty, and tried the Appellant, it failed to indicate upon what grounds it convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death.
I wonder why the Court below could write a four-sentence remark in its judgment of the 18th of February, 2013 – pages 263 – 300.
There was in my view no judgment given regarding the Appellant.
There is no doubt that the Appellant was properly arranged before the Court below.
Evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value is the primary duty of the trial Court, that saw and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The Appellate Court does not enjoy this much advantage.
The law is elementary that the trial judge is required to evaluate and make specific findings of facts, before coming to a conclusion.
Failure to do so will not only vitiate its conclusion, but will give this Court power to influence and evaluate such evidence and make proper findings as long as the findings do not depend on the credibility of witnesses.
In LAGGA V. SARHUNA (2008) LPELR 1740 (SC), it was held inter alia that where the evaluation of evidence would require the determination of the credibility of witnesses (as in the present case) the Appellate Court cannot evaluate. The only option in such a situation is an order for retrial.
It is no gainsaying, that the Court below failed woefully to evaluate the evidence before it and if this Honurable Court would do it, it must inevitably entail the determination of the credibility of witnesses who testified in the Court below. In the present case, six witnesses testified for the prosecution and eight witnesses testified for the defence (a total of 14 witnesses).
In OMOSAYE V. STATE (2014) LPELR 22059 (SC), the Apex Court held inter alia, that:
“….the Appellant was charged with the offence of murder which carries a serious consequence – death. More injustice will be done if the order for retrial is not granted having regard to the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution.”
Before ordering a retrial, the Appellate Court must consider the following viz:
1. That there has been such an error in law or an irregularity in procedure which renders the trial a nullity.
2. That apart from the error of law or irregularity in procedure, the evidence before the Court discloses a substantive case against the accused.
3. That there are no special circumstances which would make it unjust, to order a retrial.
4. That the offence for which the accused is charged and their consequences are serious in nature.
5. That to refuse an order of retrial would occasion a greater injustice.
The conviction of the Appellant was not predicated on anything known to law. The issue raised by both parties whether by the evidence and exhibits before the Court, the trial Court was not right in convicting the Appellant on his plea of guilty, must be answered in the affirmative.
The issue is resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
The Appeal succeeds and same is hereby allowed.
The judgment of the High Court of Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division delivered on the 18th day of February, 2013 in Charge Number HOW/51C/2011 is hereby set aside.
This case shall accordingly be remitted to the Chief Judge of Imo State, for retrial.
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, RITA N. PEMU, JCA, where the facts and contentions of Counsel to the parties have been set out and determined. I am in agreement with my learned brother’s reasoning and conclusions. I also find this appeal meritorious. The judgment of the High Court of Imo State, Owerri Judicial Division delivered on the 18th day of February, 2013 in Charge Number: HOW/51C/2011 is accordingly set aside.
This case shall be remitted to the Chief Judge of Imo State, for reassignment to another Judge of the High Court for a retrial.
IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother Rita N. Pemu, JCA (Presiding Justice). I am in total agreement with his lordship that the case was not well articulated by the trial judge despite the evidence available. The proper order to make in the circumstances is indeed to order a retrial. I so order.
Appearances:
Philip Ibekwe, Esq, with him, Peter Chukwu, Esq. For Appellant(s)
C.O. Chukwumaeze, Esq, Principal State Council, Imo State, Ministry of Justice, Owerri For Respondent(s)
