OPEYEMI SALAMI v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13418(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 3rd day of June, 2019
CA/AK/280C/2017
JUSTICES
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
OPEYEMI SALAMI Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER R NOT THE COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS ALONE
It is the law that a Court of law can convict on confessional statements alone once same are positive, direct and properly proved. See AFOLABI V. STATE; ASIMI V. THE STATE; OKEKE V. THE STATE AND ABIODUN V. STATE (SUPRA). PER ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Osun State, Ile Ife Judicial Division, presided over by his Lordship the Honourable Justice F. E. Awolalu. (See pages 134-140 of the printed record). The Appellant was charged along with one other accused person on a four count charge for the offence of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery brought pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. Cap R11. Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act. Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all the counts. In the course of trial, the 2nd accused person died and the charge against him was withdrawn by the prosecution and his name accordingly struck out. The matter was initially pending before the Honourable Justice G. E. Olatoke wherein trial had already commenced before it was transferred to the Honourable Justice F. E. Awolalu. In line with the trite position of the law, the matter had to start de novo. After going through the full gamut of
1
trial, the Appellant was discharged and acquitted in respect of the offence of conspiracy but was convicted for robbery and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment after learned trial judge found that there was no strong evidence showing that an offensive weapon was used. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellant has exercised his right of appeal to this Honourable Court. On 31st of October, 2017, this Honourable Court granted the Appellant extension of time to file his Notice of Appeal and directed that same be filed within 14 days. In line with the Order of this Honourable Court the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on the 6th November, 2017 while the record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to the Registry of this Honourable Court on the 13th of December, 2017.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
?One Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice alleged that on the 5th of June, 2005 she heard one of her roommates screaming and she saw a man with a cutlass who demanded that all of them in the room should lie down and surrender their phone. Her Panasonic phone was on the table and was taken by the armed robbers, who also ransacked their bags and took
2
her second mobile phone and the sum of N950.00 from the bag. She also alleged that the armed robbers collected two phones from her roommates before they left. After the incident, she alerted her other colleagues and the school authority and lodged a complaint at the Police station. Based on her complaint, the police visited the scene of the crime for further investigation and also obtained her statement under caution. Few days later (10th December, 2005) the Appellant was arrested by the police around Sabo in Ile Ife for armed robbery on the basis that someone pointed at the Appellant, alleging thet he resemble one of those who came to rob them in school. After investigation the Appellant with one Awobifa Damilola (now deceased) were both charged before the High Court of Osun State.
In line with the Rules of this Court, the parties filed their respective brief of argument which were identified and adopted on their behalves by the learned counsel who appeared for them on the 5th of March, 2019 when the appeal was heard.
?
The Appellant?s Brief of Argument was settled by Adedayo Adedeji Esq. wherein two issued were formulated from the three (3)
3
grounds of appeal as follows:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT IN GRAVE ERROR WHEN HE ADMITTED EXHIBIT I IN EVIDENCE AND RELIED ON SAME IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED ITS CASE AGAINST THE APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (GROUND 1)
2. WHETHER OR NOT FROM THE EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION, THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE OFFENCE OF ROBBERY AS TO WARRANT THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE APPELLANT TO 21 YEARS IMPRISONMENT. (GROUND 2 AND 3)
The Respondent?s Brief of Argument was settled by Abiodun Badiora (AG&PT) MOJ, Osun state wherein two issues were formulated similar to the two issues raised by the counsel to the appellant, to wit:
i. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in admitting Exhibit I and relying on same to determine the guilt of the Appellant. (GROUND 1)
ii. Whether or not from the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable the offence of robbery as to warrant the conviction and sentence of the appellant to 21 years imprisonment. (GROUNDS 2 AND 3)
?
The same learned counsel adopted the two briefs on
4
behalves of their clients on the 5th March, 2019. The issues in the briefs are similar and distilled from the three (3) grounds of appeal. As such I elect to use the set formulated by the Appellant in consideration of this appeal being the owner of the appeal against the decision of the trial Court.
ISSUE ONE
This issue takes its root from Ground one (1) of the Notice of Appeal and in arguing same, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that in establishing that there was robbery and the Appellant was one of the robbers, the learned trial Judge at pages 137 and 139 of the printed record relied on the evidence of Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice contained in Exhibit ?1? which is the proceedings before Hon. Justice G. O. Oladoke before the matter started de nove. He submitted that the effect of a matter starting de novo is that the whole case will be retried as if there was no trial in the first place. Reliance placed on the cases of BABATUNDE V. P.A.S. & T.A. LTD. (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1050) 113 and FADIORA V. GBADEBO (1978) 1 NSCL. 121; (1978) 3 SC. 219.
Counsel opined that it was wrong of the trial Court to say that the earlier
5
part heard trials were part of the records before it. He referred to the case before it. He referred to the case of FRANCIS OMOSAYE V. THE STATE (2014) LPELR. 22059 SC. per Ariwoola, JSC. Also referred to BLACK?S LAW DICTIONARY, Ninth Edition pages 1431 and 1654.
Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge fundamentally erred in law when he admitted Exhibit 1 in evidence and relied on it in determining the charge before him. That by admitting and relying on the said exhibit, it amounts to fragrant violation of Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act.
He further submitted that the effect of Sections 39 and 46 is that before the prosecution or the trial Court can rely on Exhibit 1, it must be established that the requirements of the said sections were fulfilled. That a cursory look at the printed record will clearly show that the prosecution failed to meet any of the requirements in S. 39 before tendering and relying on Exhibit 1 by the learned trial Judge.
Counsel referred to pages 61 and 66 of the printed record where the PW1 and PW2 in giving evidence stated thus:
RE EXAMINATION (PW1) by Mr. Badiora at Page 61
Adebiyi Toyin
6
Beatrice has finished from the School and no longer there.
I know this as I went to the School and informed she has passed out.
Page 66 (PW2)
I know Toyin Beatrice she was one of the victim of the robbery. I also know Damilola Olaitan she was one of the victim of the robbery and actually identified Accused. I don?t know where they are now.
I am aware Toyin Beatrice was in Court earlier and testified as PW1 before the case started De Novo.
He submitted that by no stretch of imagination can this qualify as meeting any of the conditions provided in S. 39 of the Evidence Act. That the prosecution failed to demonstrate the steps or efforts made to reach the victims of the crime which is fundamental to the prosecution?s case and the effect is that the prosecution failed to establish that there was robbery on 5th December, 2005 and automatically the case of the prosecution ought to fall like a pack of cards.
?
Counsel further submitted that for the fact that Exhibit 1 was certified being a public document does not serve as an exemption to the requirements in Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act. That before the said document
7
was relied on, the learned trial Judge ought to have satisfied himself that Exhibit 1 complied with Sections 104(1), 46 and 39 of the Evidence Act. That the failure to raise objection to the admissibility of Exhibit 1 does not remedy the fact that it is inadmissible ab-initio; as the parties cannot consent to illegality. In other words, a mandatory statutory provision directing a procedure to be followed in the performance of any public duty is not a party?s personal right to be waived. Relied in the case of EGHOBAMIEN V. F.M.B.N. (2002) 17 NWLR (PT. 797) 488 per Mohammed, JSC.
On this score, the learned counsel for the Appellant, Adedayo Adedeji Esq. urged us to resolve issue 1 in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent in this appeal.
In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent Abiodun Badiora (AG&PT) MOJ. Osun State stated what transpired that led to the admission of Exhibit 1 by reference to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 at pages 61 and 66 of the record of appeal. He also referred to and quoted the provisions of Sections 46 and 39 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
?
He contended that in the instant case, it is clear that the
8
earlier proceedings and the trial that led to this appeal are between the same parties in line with Section 46(2) of the Evidence Act. That the Appellant?s counsel had the opportunity to cross-examined the witness and the issues were the same.
On the circumstances that led to the inability of the witness to come back to testify, referred to testimonies of PW1 at page 61 and PW2 at page 66 of the record. That in Exhibit 1 it can been seen that Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice was adequately cross-examined by the defence in the said earlier proceedings. That insisting on the presence of Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice will cause unreasonable delay in the matter which made the facts of the case to fall under S. 39(d) of the Evidence Act and the cases of BABALOLA V. THE STATE (1970) LPELR 694 SC P. 6 PARAS. C-D and SANYAOLU V. COKER & ORS. (1983) LPELR 3012 SC. P. 20 PARAS. A-E. Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 at pages 61 and 66 testified that Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice cannot be found.
?
Counsel contended that the position of the Appellant is misconceived as far as the application ofSections 39 and 46are concerned, on the admissibility of the former judicial proceedings.
9
The law is clear and trite that testimony of a witness in earlier proceedings can be tendered admitted and rely upon once the conditions in Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act have been compiled with, whether or not the trial began de novo or a re-trial was ordered.
He therefore submitted that both cases of BABATUNDE V. P.A.S. & T.A. LTD. and FRANCIS OMOSAYE V. THE STATE (supra) cited and relied upon by the Appellant are not applicable in the circumstances of this case, because the issue of usage of earlier proceedings in a later judicial process where the witness in the earlier proceedings was no longer available to testify under Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act, was not discussed.
Learned counsel urge us to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
RESOLUTION
The arguments under ISSUE one (1) relate to admission and reliance on Exhibit 1 by the learned trial judge which bordered on ground one(1) of the Grounds of Appeal. Exhibit 1 contains the earlier proceedings before Hon. Justice G. E. Oladoke which was tendered during the trial that led to instant appeal.
?
From the record of appeal, what transpired that led to
10
the admission of Exhibit 1 is stated at pages 61 and 66 of the record. PW1 testified that the witness, Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice, has finished from the school at the time the trial started de novo. She was also a victim. PW2 said Toyin Beatrice and Damilola Olaitan were victims of the offence. He also said thus:
?Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice has finished from the school and no longer there. I know this as I went to the school and informed she has passed out?.
I have examined the provisions of Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which state thus:
S. 39 ? ?statements whether written or oral of facts in issue or relevant facts made by a person:
a) Who is dead;
b) Who cannot be found;
c) Who has become incapable of giving evidence; or
d) Whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are admissible under Sections 40 to 50.?
S. 46 ? ?Evidence given by a witness in judicial proceedings, or before any person authorized by law take it, is admissible for the purpose of proving in a
11
subsequent judicial proceedings the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness cannot be called for any of the reasons specified in S. 39, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party?.
My deduction is that the facts of the case on record compiled with the provision of S. 39(b) and (d) (supra).
This conform with the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of BABALOLA & ANOR V. THE STATE and SANYAOLU V. COKER & ORS (SUPRA). It is on record that the incident occurred on 5th December, 2005 as shown by the charge at pages 7-8 of the record of appeal. The trial that led to this appeal began de nove on 14th December, 2010 (a period of 5 years later) as shown on pages 57 and 58 of the Record.
It is my opinion that the circumstances of this case entailed the use of the earlier proceedings under Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act, the trial de novo never precluded the use of same. I so hold. The cases of BABATUNDE V. P. A. S. & T. A. LTD and FRANCIS OMOSAYE V. THE STATE cited and relied upon by the Appellant are inapplicable in the peculiar circumstances of this case because the issue of usage of earlier proceedings
12
in the latter judicial process where the witness in the earlier proceedings was no longer available to testify under Section 39 and 46 was not discussed. This I found and so hold.
The issue of consenting to an illegality as postulated by the learned counsel to the Appellant does not arise here having regard to the proceedings of 14th December, 2010 and 20th January, 2011 containing the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 respectively. As such, case of EGHOBAMIEN V. F.M.B.N. (SUPRA) cannot be relied upon on matter of waiver. This I also hold.
On the whole, the learned trial judge was right in admitting the said Exibibit 1 in relying on the evidence of Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice in the exhibit amongst other independent evidence to determine the guilt of the Appellant.
Flowing from the above, this issue one is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
ISSUE TWO
This issues takes its root from Grounds 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal and in arguing same the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant retracted his confessional statements (Exhibits D, D1, F, G and H by denying the fact that he was one of the
13
Robbers that allegedly robbed Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice on the 5th of December, 2005. Having retracted, the onus lies on the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the offence. He is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to discharge the duty from the evidence on record.
It is his contention that the PW1 gave evidence to the effect that the Appellant was not arrested at the scene of the crime. Also testified that he accompanied the Appellant to the scene of the crime and was identified by the victims as one of the robbers. That the victims were not called as witnesses to corroborate their evidence.
On the part of PW2, counsel contended that he gave contradictory evidence which did not in any way point to the fact that the Appellant committed the alleged offence. That he gave evidence to the effect that the cutlass purportedly used to carry out the robbery was found under a kiosk while DW2 gave uncontroverted evidence to the effect that the cutlass was her own and was found inside her shop. That DW2?s evidence was corroborated by DW3.
?
Counsel submitted that no evidence outside the retracted confessional
14
statement pointing to the fact that the Appellant committed the offence of robbery. He further submitted that in relying on retracted confessional statement, the applicable law has been restated by OGUNTADE, JSC (Rtd) in NSOFOR & ANR. V. THE STATE (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 292 @ 320/321.
On the need for corroborative evidence outside the confessional statement as desirable before a conviction can be properly based on retracted confessional statement, reference made to the cases of ASUQUO V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40597 SC. per AKA?AHS, JSC and EDET V. THE STATE (2014) LPELR ? 23124 CA per NIMPAR, JCA.
Counsel opined that by finding that the only purported eye witness could not have identified the Appellant, this showed that there is no evidence outside the retracted confessional statement pointing to the fact that the Appellant did commit the alleged offence. That contrary to the findings of the learned trial Judge to the effect that the evidence of the Appellant in Court was an afterthought, the burden still lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant did commit the offence. That identification of a
15
stolen item does not mean the Appellant committed the alleged offence especially when considered from the perspective that the persons who Exhibits A and B were recovered from were not called as witnesses to corroborate the evidence of PW2 and PW3.
Counsel submitted that having discharged the Appellant for the offence of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery, the learned trial Judge ought to have in the circumstance discharged the Appellant. That from the evidence led by the prosecution, same does not support the conviction of robbery made by the trial Court. That there was no evidence of threat of actual violence as required by law which includes situation of helplessness.
Counsel contended that to establish robbery, it has been held in plethora of authorities culminating in EDET V. THE STATE (SUPRA) that the prosecution must prove that: (a) There was robbery, (b) The robbers were armed with offensive weapons prohibited by law and (c) The accused participated in the robbery. Cited BOZIN V. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 8) 465. He said that the requirements are conjunctive not disjunctive. That failure to establish one of the requirements ought to have
16
resulted in the discharge and acquittal of the Appellant in the circumstance. He referred to the cases of FASLAT ADEPOJU V. THE STATE (2014) LPELR-23312 CA; OKOSUN V. A. G. BENDEL STATE (1985)3 NWLR (PT. 12) 283 and NWACHUKWU V. THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR (PT. 11) 218 at 269. Also referred to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and submitted that the Prosecution failed to so prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of the offence with which the Appellant was convicted and sentenced.
We are urged to resolve this issue 2 in favour of the Appellant.
In conclusion, learned counsel for the Appellant urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court, quash the conviction and sentence of robbery and to substitute same with an order of discharge and acquittal of the Appellant.
?
In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent, Abiodun Badiora referred to the conviction and sentence of the Appellant at page 140 of the record of appeal. He also referred to S. 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and argued that ?Beyond Reasonable Doubt? does not mean proof beyond shadow of
17
doubt. Referred to the cases of JOHN AGBO V. THE STATE (2006) 2 SCM. 1 & 29 and ADEBAYO V. THE STATE (2008) 6 ACLR 372 @ 395. Relied on ALABI V. THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 307) 511 PARAS. F-H and UCHE V. THE STATE (2015) 6 SCM 231 @ 245 ? 246 PARAS. G-L AND A-E.
It is submitted that the case against the Appellant can be proved in any of the following ways: (a) confessional statement of the accused person, (b) Circumstantial evidence or (c) Evidence of eye witness of the crime. Referred to IGABELE V. THE STATE (2006) 3 SCM. 143 @ 171.
That in the instant case, there are cogent confessional and circumstantial evidence as well as evidence of eye witness that proved the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Counsel submitted that the ingredients of offence of Armed Robbery with which the Appellant was convicted are three: (i) That the accused stole something; (ii) That the thing stolen is in law capable of being stolen; (iii) that the accused threatened to use violence or actually used violence immediately after the time of stealing the thing. He referred to the cases of ADELEKE V. STATE (2013) LPELR-20971 SC. 33 PARAS.
18
A-C; NWATURUOCHA V. STATE (2011) LPER ? 8119 SC. 5-6 PARAS. G-C and AFOLABI V. THE STATE (2013) LPELR ? 20700 SC. 15 PARAS. E-G. Referred also to Section 15(1) of the Robbery & Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2004. He referred to Exhibit 1 containing testimony of Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice. Referred to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on record.
Counsel stated that it is the law, a Court can convict on the confessional statement alone once same is positive, direct and properly proved. Relied on AFOLABI V. STATE (2013) 10 SCM. 40 @ 53 PARAS. A-D. Cited also ASIMI V. THE STATE (2016) 9 SCM. 18 @ 27-28 PARAS. I ? L; OKEKE V. THE STATE (2016) 10 SCM. 72 @ 86-87 PARAS. 1 & A ? B and Abiodun v. state (2013) 10 SCM. 23 @ 33 ? 34 paras. 1 @ a. also at p. 37 paras. D ? F.
That the Appellant?s confession in Exhibits D, D1, F and H directly show that he committed the offence of armed robbery. The confessional statements were admitted without objection. He therefore submitted that the trial Court was right to have relied on the confessional statement, amongst other evidence to convict him.
?
Counsel contended that
19
there are other corroborative evidence outside the confessional statement. After the Appellant?s arrest, he led the police to where some of the stolen items were recovered and one of the Handsets recovered identified by the victim of the robbery as one of the Handsets stolen on the date of robbery. He also led police to recover the cutlass used. All these confirm the confessional statements as being positive, direct and properly proved. We are urged to so hold.
That the evidence adduced by the Respondent at the trial show that the Appellant stole something and the things stolen are in law capable of being stolen. The evidence also established that the Appellant threatened to use violence at the time the things stolen were taken.
?
In sharp reaction to the issue of the recovery of the cutlass tendered in evidence as Exhibit C, counsel contended that the said cutlass already transferred as at 15th December, 2005 to State CID and on which the Appellant wrote statement (Exhibit H) on 11th December, 2005 at Ile Ife Police Station cannot be recovered on the 19th December, 2005 as testified to by the mother of the Appellant during defence. That the
20
Appellant with his other witnesses were out to tell lies and deceive the Court, their evidence is an afterthought.
He submitted that the law is trite any suspect arrested and accused of committing an offence and who is willing to rely on defence of ?alibi? must timeously raise it with sufficient particulars to enable the police investigate same. Referred to UMANI V. STATE (2005) 4 ACLR 67 @ 77; OGOALA V. THE STATE (2009) 7 ACLR 35 @ 38; SOWEMIMO & ANOR V. THE STATE (2004) 1 CAC. 311 and MOHAMMED V. THE STATE (2015) 4 SCM. 214 @ 231 PARAS. D ? F.
Counsel said that the Appellant never raised ?alibi? while he was with the police. He only raised it for the first time when he was testifying in Court in his defence. That ?alibi? will fail where as in this case, there is stronger evidence against it; which fixed the Appellant at the scene of crime at the material time. Relied on MOHAMMED V. THE STATE (SUPRA) @ 233 PARAS. D-F.
?
Learned counsel to the Respondent urge us to reject the position and argument of the Appellant and to hold that from the evidence led by the Respondent, offence of robbery was proved
21
beyond reasonable doubt as to warrant conviction and sentence of the Appellant to 21 years imprisonment.
RESOLUTION
The arguments under ISSUE 2 are predicated on the standard of proof. This therefore instigated my quest to visit the printed record of appeal with the view to ascertain whether or not the prosecution on whose onus lies proved his case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law to warrant conviction and sentence of the Appellant as done by the trial Court.
In discharge of the burden that lies on the prosecution, the ingredients of the alleged offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the definition by S. 15 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2004.
?
It is on record that one Adebiyi Toyin Beatrice, one of the victims of the offence testified during the first trial as shown in Exhibit 1 that on 5th December, 2005 around 5.20 am in their hostel, a man with a cutlass threatening them robbed her and her roommate of their Handsets and money. She identified Exhibit A which is one of the Handsets forcefully stolen as her own. PW2 testified that the Appellant led them to recover Exhibits A, B and
22
C. also testified that the Appellant made Exhibits ?F? and ?H? (confessional statements) admitted without objection from the Appellant. In the said statements, he gave detail of how the robbery was carried out, how the stolen items were shared and sold. He led the police to where some of the stolen items were recovered and where he kept the cutlass allegedly used. PW1 also testified that the Appellant volunteered Exhibits D and D1 which are similar confessional statements.
I have carefully perused the Appellant?s confession in Exhibits D, D1, F and H in which shown the connection of the Appellant with the offence of armed robbery as demonstrated therein. It is the law that a Court of law can convict on confessional statements alone once same are positive, direct and properly proved. See AFOLABI V. STATE; ASIMI V. THE STATE; OKEKE V. THE STATE AND ABIODUN V. STATE (SUPRA).
It is on record that the confessional statements were admitted in evidence without objection. The retraction of same was an afterthought having regard to other corroborative evidence outside the confessional statements as earlier stated. The evidence
23
is to the effect that after the Appellant?s arrest, he led the police to where some of the stolen items were recovered and one of the Handsets recovered was identified by a victim of the robbery as one of the Handsets stolen on the date of robbery. The cutlass used was also recovered by the police led to the place of recovery by the Appellant. These confirm the confessional statements as being positive, direct and properly proved. This I found and so hold.
In this case, the confessional statements passed the tests in ASUQUO V. THE STATE (SUPRA). SEE EDET V. THE STATE (SUPRA). The trial Court was right to have relied on the confessional statements tendered and admitted amongst other evidence to convict the Appellant. I so hold.
Section 1(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2004 state thus: ?Any person who commits the offence of robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 21 years?.
Flowing from the above, this ISSUE 2 is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
?
On the whole, this appeal lacks merit and hereby dismissed.
24
The judgment of the trial Court delivered by Hon. Justice F. E. Awolalu on the 23rd day of May, 2013 is therefore affirmed.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the leading judgment, in this appeal, just rendered by my learned Brother, Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi, JCA.
For the reasons fully stated in the said leading judgment, I agree that the appeal is devoid of merit and also dismiss it.
Consequently, I affirm the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 23rd May, 2013 in suit No. HlF/19C/2006, in which the Appellant was convicted as charged and duly sentenced.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: Having read in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother Ridwan M. Abdullahi, JCA I am in agreement with same and that the appeal be dismissed as the offence of Robbery as charged was proved at the trial Court.
Appeal dismissed.
25
Appearances:
Adebayo adedeji Esq.For Appellant(s)
Abiodun Badiora (AG &PT) MOJ. Osun State with O. Alake and B. Toye (SC)For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Adebayo adedeji Esq.For Appellant
AND
Abiodun Badiora (AG &PT) MOJ. Osun State with O. Alake and B. Toye (SC)For Respondent