LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

YAKUB v. STATE (2021)

YAKUB v. STATE

(2021)LCN/15886(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, November 11, 2021

CA/IL/57C/2020

Before Our Lordships:

Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ibrahim Shata Bdliya Justice of the Court of Appeal

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

AZEEZ YAKUB APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

​In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This means that it is not enough for the Prosecution/Respondent to suspect a person of having committed a criminal offence. There must be evidence, which identified the Person Accused with the offence, and that it was his act which caused the offence. See ABADOM VS. THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 479, PG. 1; AKINYEMI VS. THE STATE (1999) 6 NWLR PT. 607, PG. 449, AIGBADION VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT. 1, PG. 15.

The Prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the Accused Person. This can be proved by:
(a) The Confessional Statement of the Accused Person;
(b) Circumstantial evidence; and
(c) Evidence of an eye witness of the crime.
PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “POSSESSION”

What therefore is possession in the legal parlance?
“Possession means the exercise or dominion over property, the right under which one may exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others”.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines possession as follows:
“Having control over a thing with the intent to have and exercise such control. The definition of control, or the manual or ideal custody of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’s place and name, Per OKORO, JCA in STAR FINANCE AND PROPERTY LIMITED VS. NDIC (2012) LPELR 8394.
RHODES- VIVOUR JSC in UGWANYI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2012) LPELR 7817 held: “To have or own is to possess. A thing is in possession of a person if it is found on him.”
See also OBIENU VS. OKEKE (2017) LPELR 43447 where Ogunwumiju, JCA (as he then was) held: “according to Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition ‘Possession is defined as the fact of having or holding property in one’s power; the exercise of dominion over property. Exclusive possession, can be defined as the exercise of exclusive dominion over property, including the use and benefit of the property”.
PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Such confession is admissible in evidence. Although an Accused Person can be convicted solely on his Confessional Statement, it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which would make it probable that the confession was true. See DIBIE VS. THE STATE (2007) 9 NWLR PT. 1038, PG. 30; NWAEBONYI VS. THE STATE (1994) 5 NWLR PT. 343, PG. 131.
“A free and voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct and positive and properly established is sufficient proof of guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such confession. See SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (2005) 11 NWLR PT. 937, PG. 460; EDHIGERE VS. THE STATE(1996) 8 NWLR PT. 464, PG. 1; ULUEBEKA VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT. 1, PG. 203; IDOWU VS. THE STATE (2000) 7 SC PT. II, PG. 50; ALARAPE VS. THE STATE (2001) 14 WRN PG. 1”.  PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Kwara State, delivered on 22nd January, 2020 by S. D. KAWU, C. J. 

The brief facts of this Appeal is that, offensive smells were coming out of the Appellant’s house. The Police were informed and a search was conducted in the premises of the Appellant wherein, human skulls and bones were discovered in the ceiling of the Appellant’s room. The Appellant was thereafter, arrested and he made useful statement, listing the names of his Customers.

The Appellant was arraigned with Six (6) other Accused Persons and charged with the following offences:
COUNT ONE:
That you AZEEZ YAKUB, AISHAT YUNUSA, AHMED YAHAYA, SOLIU AYINDE, ABDULGANIYU BAMIDELE, ABDULRASAK BABAMALE and LUKMAN SAKA on or about 5th day of October, 2018, at No. 20, Opa Compound, Adeta, Alfa Yahaya Area, Ilorin, Kwara State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court conspired to commit an illegal act to wit found in unlawful possession of human parts contrary to Section 9 and punishable under Section 12 of the  Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, Kwara State of Nigeria Law No. 4 of 2018.
COUNT TWO:
That you AZEEZ YAKUB, AISHAT YUNUSA, AHMED YAHAYA, SOLIU AYINDE, ABDULGANIYU BAMIDELE, ABDULRASAK BABAMALE and LUKMAN SAKA on or about 5th day of October, 2018, at No. 20, Opa Compound, Adeta, Alfa Yahaya Area, Ilorin, Kwara State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court committed an illegal act of trafficking, selling and buying human parts contrary to Section 1 and punishable under Section 12 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, Kwara State of Nigeria Law No. 4 of 2018.
COUNT THREE:
That you AZEEZ YAKUB, AISHAT YUNUSA, AHMED YAHAYA, SOLIU AYINDE, ABDULGANIYU BAMIDELE, ABDULRASAK BABAMALE and LUKMAN SAKA on or about 5th day of October, 2018, at No. 20, Opa Compound, Adeta, Alfa Yahaya Area, Ilorin, Kwara State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court were found in unlawful possession of human parts contrary to Sections 1, 4 and 7 and punishable under Section 12 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, Kwara State of Nigeria Law No. 4 of 2018.

At the end of a full trial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced thus: ​“The 1st Convict who is the hub of the wheel of this despicable and shameful trade in human parts is sentenced on each of Counts 1, 2 and 3 to 15 Years imprisonment and N100,000.00 fine totaling 45 Years imprisonment and N300,000.00 fine. The sentences are to run concurrently meaning that he is to spend 15 Years in prison and pay a fine of N100,000.00. The prison term is to include the period the Convict has already spent in Custody”.

The Appellant was naturally unhappy with his conviction and sentence hence, this Appeal. The Appellant filed a Notice on 19th November, 2020 with Four (4) Grounds of Appeal. The Notice was amended on 4th March, 2021 with three (3) Grounds of Appeal. This Amended Notice was deemed properly filed and served on 22nd June, 2021. The Appellant filed his Appellant’s Brief of Argument on 4th March, 2021 and deemed properly filed and served on 22nd June, 2021. The Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed on 22nd September, 2021 and deemed properly filed and served on 23rd September, 2021.

​The Appellant in his Appellant’s Brief of Argument articulated a sole issue for determination which the Respondent adopted in its Brief filed on 20th September, 2021 and deemed as properly filed and served on 23rd September, 2021.

SOLE ISSUE:
“WHETHER ON THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, THE RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HUMAN PARTS, TRAFFICKING, SELLING AND BUYING OF HUMAN PARTS AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Prosecution on the Count of trafficking, selling and buying of human parts, contrary to S.1 and Punishable Under S.12 of Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, it had to prove the following elements:
“a. That there is an act of trafficking, buying and selling of human parts.
b. That the Defendant was involved in the act of trafficking, buying and selling of human parts.
c. That what are being trafficked, bought or sold by the Defendants are human parts and not the parts of other animals.

​Counsel stated that the burden of proof is on the Prosecution and referred the Court to S.135 of the Evidence Act 2011.

See THE STATE VS. ISIAKA (2013) 11 NWLR PT. 1364, PG. 162.

The Prosecution can discharge this burden by any one of the following ways:
i. By the confession of the accused which must be direct and positive.
ii. By the evidence of an eye-witness who directly witnessed the commission of the offence; and/or
iii. Circumstantial evidence which points directly and unequivocally that the accused person(s) and no other person committed the offence. See AGBOOLA VS. STATE (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1366) 628. See also TOPE VS. STATE (2019) 15 NWLR (PT. 1795) 289; LORDPITORL VS. STATE (2012) 12 SCM 134.

Counsel argued that none of the Prosecution Witnesses gave evidence to establish the offence of trafficking, buying and selling of human parts. The Prosecution only relied on the Confessional Statement Exhibit P55 of the Appellant to prove the charge. Counsel argued further that there was no evidence to corroborate Exhibit P55.

​Counsel also stated that the learned trial Judge did not make a specific finding whether Exhibit P55 was admitted as a Confessional Statement or a retracted statement of the Appellant as can be gleaned from the judgment:

“…and in view of the consistent evidence of PW4 on how the 1st Defendant volunteered his statement and taking account of the inconsistent nature of the objection raised by the 1st Defendant which initially was based on involuntariness but later changed to a total denial of authorship, I hereby overrule the objection of the 1st Defendant and admit his statement as Exhibit P55”.
See HASSAN VS. THE STATE (2001) LPELR 1358 where the Supreme Court held thus:
“However, it is very usual for an accused person to retract, deny or resile during his trial in the Court from the extra-judicial statement he had earlier made to the Police immediately after the event giving rise to the charge or arraignment against him. In such cases, the law casts a duty on both the accused person who made the subsequent denial to impeach the earlier statement and on the Trial Judge who is to test the veracity or otherwise of such statement by testing it or comparing it with other facts and circumstances outside the statement or in order to see whether they support, confirm or correspond with the said statement which will then be regarded as correct. In other words, the statement will be subjected to scrutiny by the Courts in other to test its truthfulness or otherwise in line with other available evidence and circumstances of the case” KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C., (PG. 12 – 13, PARAS, E – A)
The test to be applied whilst treating a retracted extra-judicial statement is as follows:-
(1) Whether there is anything outside the confession to show that the confession is true;
(2) Whether the statement is corroborated no matter how slightly;
(3) Whether the facts contained therein so far as can be tested are true;
(4) Whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence’
(5) Whether the confession of the accused person was possible;
(6) Whether the confession was consistent with other facts which have been ascertain and proved in the matter.
See R. VS. SKYE (1913) 1 LAR PG. 233.

Counsel also complained about Exhibit P1 tendered by PW1 and made by one Dr. Kazeem, a Consultant Pathologist. Counsel argued that the trial Judge was in error to have admitted Exhibit P1 without the maker being present in Court. See ISIEKWE VS. THE STATE (1990) 9 NWLR PT. 617, PG. 43.
Counsel argued that the Court shifted the proof of whether the bones Exhibits P2 – P53 were human parts to the Appellant. Also that the Pathologist was not competent to say whether the bones exhibited were of humans or not.

Counsel submitted further that the Prosecution had to prove the following in a Court for unlawful possession of human parts. S. 1, 4 and 7 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law 2018.
a. The Appellant was found in possession of human parts;
b. That what was found in possession of the Appellant was human parts and not the parts of any other animal.

Counsel argued that the Appellant was arrested somewhere. That the Prosecution never proved that the Appellant was found in possession of Exhibits P2 – P53.

Counsel submitted that the ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is that there is an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. See ODUNEYE VS. THE STATE (Supra); BENSON OBIAKOR VS. THE STATE (2002) 6 SCNJ PG. 193. Counsel argued that the inference of an agreement between the appellant and the other Accused persons cannot be drawn from the evidence before the Court.

The Prosecution failed to prove the agreement or the meeting of the mind by the Appellant and all the other Accused Persons.

Counsel finally submitted that the Prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients of the offences charged. Counsel therefore urged the Court to allow this Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the lower Court in the conviction and sentence and discharge and acquit the Appellant.

In response, the Respondent Counsel submitted that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond a shadow of doubt. See JIYA VS. THE STATE (2020) 13 NWLR PT. 1740, PG. 159; OTEKI VS. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1986) 6 NWLR PT. 24; MBACHU VS. THE STATE (2018) 17 NWLR PT. 1649, PG. 395.

Counsel opined that the trial Judge was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge agreed that Exhibit P55 was corroborated by the viva voce evidence of PW3. Counsel argued that PW2, PW3, and PW4 gave eye-witness accounts to what transpired in the Appellant’s house.

​The Appellant’s Counsel stated that the trial Judge did not pronounce on whether the extra judicial statement Exhibit P55 was indeed a Confessional Statement made voluntarily. To this, Counsel submitted that indeed the learned trial Judge made his findings and stated that the Confessional Statement, Exhibit P55 was voluntary. The trial Judge referred to the bio-data in Exhibit P55 and compared it with the one the Appellant gave in Court during trial.

Counsel submitted that apart from Exhibit P55, the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 was enough to ground a conviction.

As to Exhibit P1 the Medical Report, Counsel stated that there is a presumption of regularity on the Report. See S.148 (e) of the Evidence Act. If the Appellant wanted to challenge it or counter such presumption, it is for the Appellant to call evidence to rebut that presumption.

The argument that the Prosecution failed to prove that Exhibits P2 – P53 are human parts goes to no issue.
Counsel referred the Court to the argument by the Appellant as to whom can make such findings of the bones. The Appellant argued that it was the work of an Anthropologist and not a Pathologist.

The Appellant’s Counsel also argued as to the Appellant being in possession of Exhibits P2 – P53. The Appellant did not deny that he was in possession of Exhibits P2-P53. Counsel also referred the Court to the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 on the issue of possession, THE STATE VS. OLADOTUN (2011) 10 NWLR PT 1256 PG. 546.

Counsel submitted that the offence of conspiracy can only be inferred by the acts of the Accused Persons in the commission of the offence. What is important is a meeting of the mind or an agreement to do some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means. See THE STATE VS. SALAWU (2010) ALL FWLR PT 614 PG. 1; ADEKUNLE VS. THE STATE (1989) 12 SCNJ PG. 184; NWOSU VS. THE STATE (2004) ALL FWLR PT. 218, PG. 916.

The Supreme Court in the case of AKINLOLU VS. THE STATE (2018) ALL FWLR PT 927 PG. 1 held that the best evidence of conspiracy is usually obtained from one of the Conspirators as in this Appeal where the Appellant and 4th Accused Person at the trial narrated how they all conspired.

​A Court can infer conspiracy from the criminal acts of the parties including evidence of complicity. See IKWUNNE VS. THE STATE (2000) 5 NWLR PT. 658, PG. 550; OSONDU VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2000) 12 NWLR PT. 682, PG. 483; ONYENYE VS. THE STATE (2012) ALL FWLR PT. 643, PG. 1810.

Counsel urged the Court to hold that, conspiracy of the Accused Persons with the Appellant was inferred by the statement of the Appellant, who listed the names of his Customers in this trade.

Finally, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.

RESOLUTION
The Appellant in the trial Court was charged with Six (6) others with conspiracy, unlawful possession of Human Parts and in trafficking, buying and selling of human parts.

In proof of this allegation, the Prosecution called Four (4) Prosecution Witnesses and tendered Sixty (60) Exhibits.
In the course of the trial, Appellant retracted his extra–judicial statement alleging that it was not voluntary. The lower Court however, held that Exhibit P55 made by the Appellant was voluntary and relied on it and other corroborative evidence in reaching its decision.

​In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This means that it is not enough for the Prosecution/Respondent to suspect a person of having committed a criminal offence. There must be evidence, which identified the Person Accused with the offence, and that it was his act which caused the offence. See ABADOM VS. THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 479, PG. 1; AKINYEMI VS. THE STATE (1999) 6 NWLR PT. 607, PG. 449, AIGBADION VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT. 1, PG. 15.

The Prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the Accused Person. This can be proved by:
(a) The Confessional Statement of the Accused Person;
(b) Circumstantial evidence; and
(c) Evidence of an eye witness of the crime.

In this Appeal the Appellant made Exhibit P55 which he retracted during trial but was still tendered in evidence after a Trial-Within-Trial ruled during the Judgment. In Exhibit P55, the Appellant recounted how he obtained human parts and how he sold it to his Customers. The so-called Customers are 2nd to 7th Accused Persons at the trial. He also gave their telephone numbers.

​It was through these numbers that these other Accused Persons were supposedly tracked down. In Exhibit P55, the Appellant’s bio-data is the same as what he gave in his evidence viva voce. This in itself, suggests, that he infact, made the Exhibit P55 voluntarily.

Exhibit P55 can well be taken as a Confessional Statement. The information in it is one within the personal knowledge of the Appellant. It would be recalled that on a tip off, a team of Police Officers stormed the Appellant’s house. He was not found there but was later arrested in the house of his wife. After which, the Appellant took the Police officer back to his family house. The Appellant was the one who informed the Police that he had human parts in the ceiling of his room. The Police Officers then climbed up and retrieved Exhibits P2 – P53 – human skulls and parts.

PW3 in his evidence in Court stated that he and another Police Officer climbed up to retrieve the human skulls and parts from the ceiling. The evidence of PW3 is an eye-witness account of how Exhibits P2 – P53 were retrieved.

​This piece of evidence of an eye-witness account was not denied in cross-examination. This bit of evidence remained unchallenged by the Appellant and therefore stands. <br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

The Appellant was charged with being in possession of Human parts. The human parts tendered as Exhibits P2 – P53 was found in the ceiling of the room of the Appellant. In fact, the Appellant told them where to find the Exhibits. However, Appellant’s Counsel argued that Exhibits P2 – P53 were not found on the Appellant. What therefore is possession in the legal parlance?
“Possession means the exercise or dominion over property, the right under which one may exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others”.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines possession as follows:
“Having control over a thing with the intent to have and exercise such control. The definition of control, or the manual or ideal custody of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’s place and name, Per OKORO, JCA in STAR FINANCE AND PROPERTY LIMITED VS. NDIC (2012) LPELR 8394.
RHODES- VIVOUR JSC in UGWANYI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2012) LPELR 7817 held:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

“To have or own is to possess. A thing is in possession of a person if it is found on him.”
See also OBIENU VS. OKEKE (2017) LPELR 43447 where Ogunwumiju, JCA (as he then was) held: “according to Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition ‘Possession is defined as the fact of having or holding property in one’s power; the exercise of dominion over property. Exclusive possession, can be defined as the exercise of exclusive dominion over property, including the use and benefit of the property”
From the above holdings, it is clear that the Appellant in this Appeal cannot deny being in possession of Exhibits P2 – P53.The Appellant took them to his room. The Appellant told them where he kept the human skulls and parts. In the Appellant’s ceiling. He was there when the human skulls and parts were brought down. The only reasonable conclusion that anyone can reach is that the items were in exclusive possession of the Appellant. This to my mind does not need further proof by the Prosecution.

​No one knew where the human skulls and parts were except the Appellant. There is now absolutely no need for further proof that the Appellant had these items in his exclusive possession.

The Appellant himself in Exhibit P55 stated that he was in the business of trafficking, buying and selling of Human Skulls and parts. Such admission relieves the other party of the need to call any evidence on the issue. “Facts admitted needs no proof”. See EHINLANWO VS. OKE (2008) 16 NWLR PT. 1113, PG 357. See also SAIDU VS. THE STATE (2019) LPELR-47154(CA); IGHALO VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR 40840; ESENE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR 41912; EGWUMI VS. THE STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PT. 1372, PG 525.

In this Appeal, the PW3 and PW4 gave evidence as to how the human Skulls and parts where found in the ceiling of the Appellant’s room. The Appellant himself led them to the place he kept Exhibits P2-P53. These pieces of evidence corroborated the extra- judicial statement of the Appellant even though he retracted Exhibit P55.

​There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Such confession is admissible in evidence. Although an Accused Person can be convicted solely on his Confessional Statement, it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which would make it probable that the confession was true. See DIBIE VS. THE STATE (2007) 9 NWLR PT. 1038, PG. 30; NWAEBONYI VS. THE STATE (1994) 5 NWLR PT. 343, PG. 131.
“A free and voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct and positive and properly established is sufficient proof of guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such confession. See SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (2005) 11 NWLR PT. 937, PG. 460; EDHIGERE VS. THE STATE(1996) 8 NWLR PT. 464, PG. 1; ULUEBEKA VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT. 1, PG. 203; IDOWU VS. THE STATE (2000) 7 SC PT. II, PG. 50; ALARAPE VS. THE STATE (2001) 14 WRN PG. 1”.

​In this Appeal, the Appellant retracted his Confessional Statement, Exhibit P55, however, the learned trial Judge admitted it and acted on it. The bio-data in the Confessional Statement, Exhibit P55 was the same as the one the Appellant gave in his viva voce evidence in Court. This in itself laid credence to his Confessional Statement Exhibit P55 as given voluntarily. If not, how would the Police be ceased of such personal information about the Appellant?

Furthermore, the evidence of PW3 tend to corroborate the Confessional Statement of the Appellant in many particulars. The names and phone numbers in Exhibit P55 were all given by the Appellant himself. The Appellant can be said to be in possession of Exhibits P2 –P53 found in the ceiling of his room. He also did not acquire them for the sake of acquiring them. It would be inferred that he acquired or procured Exhibits P2 – P53 to deal in them. Therefore, it would be right to say that he was trafficking, buying and selling Human parts to his co-Conspirators.

The Appellant’s Counsel made heavy weather about the tendering of Exhibit P1 – the Report of the Pathologist. The Pathologist who deals in human bodies and body tissues is the rightful person to say whether Exhibits P2-P53 were human parts. The Anthropologist studies the human race, especially of its origins, development, customs and beliefs.

The Appellant’s Counsel argued strongly that the maker of Exhibit P1, the Pathology Report was not the person who tendered it in Court. I seek umbrage in the case of THE STATE VS. AJIE (2000) LPELR 3211 where the Supreme Court held: “A medical officer in the services of a State for purposes of undertaking a post-mortem examination is a pathologist and his report is a certificate as envisaged in S.42(1) (a) of the Evidence Act. The certificate when tendered and admitted in evidence is regarded as sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein.” Per Onu JSC, AMUSA VS. THE STATE (2003) LPELR 474, EHOT VS THE STATE (1993) 4 NWLR PT. 290, PG. 644.
The Appellant also questioned the competency of the Pathologist to perform such a task of identifying what type of bone they were. This idea can really be dispensed with as the Appellant himself in his Confessional Statement said he deals in human skulls and parts. He even stated the cost of each skull and the people he sold to.
Indeed, there is no requirement for the medical Practitioner who prepared the Report to tender it.

​The Respondent had to my mind proved the ingredients of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The lower Court was right in convicting the Appellant on the three Count Charge of conspiracy being in possession and trafficking, buying and selling Human parts. Appeal lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the lower Court in the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant.

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading a draft copy of the judgment just delivered by my Noble Lord, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA, I entirely concur with the reasoning and decision reached in dismissing the appeal because it is without merit. I, too, dismiss the appeal for it is unmeritorious.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA. I agree with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is unmeritorious. I too dismiss the appeal.

Appearances:

TEMILOLU ADAMOLEKUN, ESQ. WITH HIM, MUHAMMED USMAN, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

JIMOH ADEBIMPE MUMINI, SAN, DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION, (DPP) WITH HIM, M.O. SULYMAN, ESQ.; SENIOR STATE COUNSEL (SSC); AND KEMISOLA AFOLABI, ESQ.; SENIOR STATE COUNSEL (SSC); MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, ILORIN, KWARA STATE. For Respondent(s)