YUNUSA v. STATE
(2021)LCN/15910(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, December 03, 2021
CA/IL/28C/2021
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
AISHAT YUNUSA APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE STANDARD AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
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. UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A 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 Confessional Statement 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”. UZO IFEYINWA 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 case is that the Appellant was named by the 1st Accused Person in the Court below as one of his customers in the trade of trafficking in human parts.
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 2nd Convict is sentenced on Counts 1 and 2 each to 10 Years imprisonment and fine of N100,000.00 totaling 20 Years imprisonment and fine of N200,000.00. The sentences are to run concurrently meaning that the 2nd Convict is to spend 10 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 dissatisfied with her conviction and sentence hence, this Appeal. The Appellant filed a Notice on 11th February, 2021 with Five (5) Grounds of Appeal. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 16th June, 2021.
In it, the Appellant articulated Four (4) Issues for determination:
1. Whether the learned trial chief judge was right when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to 10 years imprisonment and fine for the offence of trafficking, selling and buying of human parts.
2. Whether the learned trial chief judge was right when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to 10 years imprisonment and a fine for the offence of criminal conspiracy to traffic, sell and buy human parts.
3. Whether the learned trial chief judge was right when he admitted and subsequently relied on the Appellant’s extra judicial statement to convict and sentence him to 10 years imprisonment and fine.
4. Whether the learned trial chief judge was right when he relied on the Respondent’s weak, unsubstantiated and unproven evidence to convict and sentence the Appellant to 10 years imprisonment and fine.
The Respondent filed its Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 28th September, 2021 but deemed properly filed and served on 28th October, 2021. Respondent articulated a sole issue for the determination of this Court. That sole issue is germane and would be utilized in the determination of this Appeal. The sole issue is thus:
“WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE OFFENCES OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, TRAFFICKING, SELLING AND BUYING OF HUMAN PARTS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS REQUIRED BY LAW (Relates to Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).”
SOLE ISSUE:
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proof placed on it, to prove the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. See EHIMYEIN VS. THE STATE (2016) 16 NWLR PT. 1531, PG. 173. It is also the duty of the Respondent to establish and prove all the ingredients of the offences charged. See Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011; Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution; ANI VS. THE STATE (2009) 16 NWLR PT. 1168, PG. 443. It is not the duty of the Appellant to prove his innocence but for the Respondent to prove his guilt.
See BELLO VS. C.O.P. (2018) 2 NWLR PT. 1603, PG. 267; MOHAMMED VS. THE STATE (2017) 13 NWLR PT. 1583, PG. 386; ISMAIL VS. THE STATE (2008) 15 NWLR PT. 1111, PG. 593.
Counsel argued that the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. See OCHEMAJE VS. THE STATE (2008) 15 NWLR PT. 1109, PG. 57; AL-MUSTAPHA VS. THE STATE (2013) 17 NWLR PT. 1383, PG. 350.
Counsel referred the Court to Section 1 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law 2018 which provides that:
“Whoever buys, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of buying or selling or trafficking any human parts commits an offence.”
To succeed in proving this allegation against the Appellant, the Respondent must establish the following:
“i. That the Appellant trafficked, sold and bought human parts.
ii. That human part(s) were found in possession of the Appellant.”
Counsel argued that none of the Respondent’s Prosecution Witnesses adduced any credible evidence at the trial that the Appellant trafficked, sold, bought or possessed human parts. PW4 in his viva voce evidence stated that the Appellant was not arrested with any human part when he arrested her. PW4 also confirmed that it was as a result of the extra-Judicial Statement of the 1st Accused Person, Exhibit P55 that they arrested the Appellant. However, the name of the Appellant was not in the list of the 1st Accused Person.
Counsel argued that the Appellant was arrested on mere suspicion since the Police arrested her without seeing her trafficking, selling, or buying human parts. Suspicion however grave, cannot ground a conviction. See OKEREKE VS. THE STATE (NO. 1) (2016) 5 NWLR PT. 1504, PG. 69; AIGBADION VS. THE STATE (2000) 7 NWLR PT. 666; IBRAHIM VS. THE STATE (2018) 1 NWLR PT. 1600, PG. 279; ONUOHA VS. THE STATE (1995) 3 NWLR PT. 385, PG. 590; ANAZODO VS. AUDU (1999) 4 NWLR PT. 600, PG. 530.
Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Respondent did not prove that the Appellant, trafficked, sold or bought human parts.
The learned Counsel argued that the Appellant did not know any of the other Accused Persons and therefore, could not have conspired with them. Conspiracy is a meeting of the minds of the Conspirators. See YAKUBU VS. THE STATE (2014) 8 NWLR PT. 1408, PG. 111, where the Court held as follows:-
“i. An agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means.
ii. Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act besides the agreement as done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement.
iii. Specifically that each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy.”
The Respondent failed to establish whether directly or by inference, the Appellant agreed with anybody to commit the crime the Appellant is being charged with. See GARBA VS. C.O.P. (2007) 16 NWLR PT. 1060, PG. 370. The Respondent could not establish how the Appellant participated in the conspiracy. See AKPA VS. THE STATE (2008) 14 NWLR PT. 1106, PG. 72; ADEPETU VS. THE STATE (1998) LPELR 135; FATOYINBO VS. A.G. OF W.N. (1996) WNLR; UDEDIBIA VS. THE STATE (1976) 11 SC PG. 133; ADIE VS THE STATE (1980) 1 – 2SC PG. 116; OMOGODO VS. THE STATE (1981) 5 SC PG. 5.
Counsel also submitted that the learned trial Judge relied on Exhibit P55 and Exhibit P56, the Extra-Judicial Statements of the Appellant in convicting the Appellant. Counsel argued again, that Exhibit P56 was not voluntary.
DW1, the Appellant’s daughter gave evidence that the Police Officers were beating the Appellant forcing her to sign Exhibit P56. See OJO VS. F.R.N. (2008) 11 NWLR PT. 1099, PG. 469, where the Court held thus:
“However, before a confessional statement alone can ground the conviction of an accused person and without corroboration, it must be shown to be direct, positive and unequivocal as to the admission of guilt by an accused person. The Court must be satisfied with the truth of such confession… Otherwise, it should be desirable to have outside the accused’s confession to the police some further evidence no matter how slight of the circumstances which make it probable that the confession was true”.
See also OGUDO VS. THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR PT. 1278, PG. 1.
Counsel also argued that a Court can convict on the Confessional Statement of an Accused Person if these requirements are met:
(a) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
(b) Is it corroborated?
(c) Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested?
(d) Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence charged?
(e) Is the confession possible?
(f) Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved? See KANU & ANOR. v. KING (1952) 14 WACA P. 30; MBANU V. STATE (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) P. 615; STEPHEN V. STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 46) P. 978.
We also commend your Lordships to AKINDIPE VS. THE STATE (2016) 15 NWLR (PT. 1536) 470@ 490 – 491 PARAGRAPHS F – A; EFFIONG VS. THE STATE (2017) 2 NWLR (PART 1549) @ 231 PARAGRAPHS F – H.
There is no iota of evidence to corroborate the above as Exhibit P56 failed the test above.
Counsel argued that the name of the Appellant was not mentioned or in the list in Exhibit P55 of the 1st Accused Person’s Statement.
Counsel argued that the learned trial Judge failed to evaluate all the material evidence placed before it in reaching its decision to convict the Appellant. See SAIDU VS. ABUBAKAR (2008) 12 NWLR PT. 1100, PG. 201. This failure, Counsel submitted had denied the Appellant the right of fair hearing. See EDET VS. THE STATE (2008) 14 NWLR PT. 1106, PG. 52.
Counsel submitted that there is no piece of evidence outside Exhibit P56 to show or corroborate the fact that indeed the Appellant was trafficking, selling and buying of human parts.
Counsel argued that the evidence of all the Prosecution Witnesses was weak and not strong enough to prove the essential ingredients of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. See AL-MUSTAPHA VS. THE STATE (2013) 17 NWLR PT. 1383, PG. 350; IKUMONIHAN VS. THE STATE (Supra).
Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to allow this Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the lower Court in convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offences charged with.
In response, the Respondent submitted that it has discharged the burden placed on it beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel referred the Court to Section 9 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, Kwara State of Nigeria Law No. 4 of 2018, which provides thus:
“Where two or more persons agree to commit an offence under this law and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the objective of the agreement, each shall be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence.”
To prove the above against the Appellant, the Prosecution has to establish the following:
“i. That the Appellant trafficked, sold and bought human parts.
ii. That human part(s) were found in possession of the Appellant.
Counsel argued that the offence of conspiracy is sustained by leading evidence from which the Court can infer certain criminal acts of the Appellant done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between the Appellant and other Accused Persons. See AKINLOLU VS. THE STATE (2018) ALL FWLR PT. 927, PG. 1.
Counsel also drew the Court’s attention to the list and phone numbers of the 1st Accused Person’s Customers. Counsel stated that the Appellant was referred to as “Iya Alagbo”. Counsel urged the Court to infer conspiracy from the inference that the Appellant and others on the list conspired to commit the offences charged. 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.
From the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, it can be inferred that the Appellant and other Accused Persons were in a conspiracy to buy, sell and traffic in human parts. See ONYEYE VS. THE STATE (2012) ALL FWLR PT. 643, PG. 1810.
Counsel again, referred the Court to Section 1 of the Kwara State Prohibition of Dealing in Human Parts Law, Kwara State of Nigeria Law No. 4 of 2018, which provides as follows:-
“Whoever buys, sells, or has in his possession for the purpose of buying or selling or trafficking any human parts commits an offence.”
To succeed in the conviction of an Appellant under this Section, the Prosecution must establish the following:
1. That Exhibits P2-P53 are human parts. See page 142 of the record.
2. That the defendant either buys, sells or traffic in human parts.
Counsel stated that with the evidence of all the Prosecution Witnesses, and the Exhibits P55 – P60 led to the following factual conclusions i.e.:
a. That Exhibits P2-P52 were found in the premises of the 1st Defendant by a combined team of police officers and local vigilantes.
b. That upon the arrest of Azeez Yakubu (1st Defendant), he confessed to the Police that he has sold a total of 31 human heads to all the defendants, including the Appellant and other people for the sum of One million eight hundred and sixty thousand Naira only.
c. That the 1st Defendant supplied the telephone numbers and the residential addresses of all his regular customers, including the Appellant.
d. That the Appellant and his co-defendants all admitted in their statement that they deal in selling, buying and trafficking of human parts.
Counsel also argued that the Appellant did not specifically deny the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses. See EBEINWE VS. THE STATE (2011) 7 NWLR PT. 1246, PG. 402; UKWUYOK VS. OGBULU (2010) 5 NWLR PT. 1187, PG. 316.
Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Respondent had proved its case against the Appellant.
Counsel also submitted that the learned trial Judge appraised material evidence placed before it before reaching its decision to convict and sentence the Appellant. See OKORIE VS. THE STATE (2018) ALL FWLR PT. 935, PG. 828.
Counsel argued that when an Accused Person makes a Confessional Statement as in Exhibit P56, it admits all the ingredients of the offences charged. See MUSA VS. THE STATE (2018) LPELR 43846.
Counsel submitted that the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses was not hearsay evidence and as such admissible. See OLAOYE VS. THE STATE (2018) LPELR 43601; ROWAYE VS. F.R.N. (2018) 18 NWLR PT. 1650, PG. 21; ODOGWU VS. THE STATE (2009) LPELR 8505; F.R.N. VS. SARAKI (2017) LPELR 43392; ANYASODOR VS. THE STATE (2018) 8 NWLR PT. 1620, PG. 107.
Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge evaluated and appraised all material evidence placed before it before reaching its well-considered decision. Exhibit P56 was corroborated by the evidence of PW4. Exhibit P56 was admission of the offences of conspiracy and dealing with human parts which the Appellant was charged with. See ONYEMAECHI OKOLI VS. THE STATE (2016) Legalpedia.
Counsel submitted that there was no bias by the learned trial Judge and that there was no denial of right of fair hearing against the Appellant. See MAGAJI VS. N.A. (2008) LPELR 1814; ORUGBO VS. UNA (2002) 16 NWLR PT. 792, PG. 175.
Counsel finally urged the Court to dismiss this Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court 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 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 her Extra-Judicial Statement Exhibit P56 alleging that it was not voluntary. The lower Court however, held that Exhibit P56 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 allegedly made Exhibit P56 which she retracted during trial as involuntary but was still tend ered in evidence after a Trial-Within-Trial ruled on during Judgment.
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 Confessional Statement 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 her Confessional Statement, Exhibit P56 that it was not given voluntarily. Even, if Exhibit P56 was voluntary, the law enjoins the trial Judge to go further and test the truth of a “Confession” by examining it in the light of the other credible evidence before the Court. See SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (Supra); NWAEZE VS. THE STATE (1996) 2 NWLR PT. 428, PG. 1; AKINMOJU VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT. 1, PG. 64.
The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that it is not enough for the Prosecution 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. 1.
The Appellant was the 2nd Accused Person in the trial Court. PW4 in his viva voce evidence, said upon the Appellant’s arrest, nothing incriminating was found. This means that no human parts were found in her possession.
The Appellant insisted that she was not in the business of trafficking, buying or selling human parts. She also said she does not know the 1st Accused Person whose purported list in Exhibit P55 incriminated her. It would be recalled that the Appellant’s name was not on that list. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was the same person as “Iya Alagbo”. There was no evidence to connect the name with the Appellant.
The 1st Accused Personal so said he does not know the Appellant. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses did not in any way connect the Appellant to the offences charged. PW4 gave evidence but nothing to incriminate the Appellant. The only eye-witness to the crime, the Prosecution Witnesses only witnessed the arrest of the 1st Accused Person and the recovery of Human Parts in his possession.
The Appellant was not seen with any Human Parts nor seen trafficking, buying or selling same.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused Person beyond reasonable doubt. If the Accused Person gives an account which is consistent with his innocence and could be true, and is not proved to be untrue, he is entitled to be acquitted.
This is because in such circumstances, there must be a doubt with regards to his guilt. See OKOLO VS C.O.P. (1977) NWLR PG. 1; OKAFOR VS. THE STATE (2006) 4 NWLR PT. 969, PG. 1.
The Respondent’s Witness, DW1, the Appellant’s daughter stated in evidence that she heard and saw her mother being beaten to endorse the so-called Confessional Statement, Exhibit P56. That in itself has cast a doubt on the voluntariness of Exhibit P56 and as such the weight to be accorded to it is minimal.
There was no evidence connecting the Appellant with any of the other Accused Persons and as such, the offence of conspiracy could not have been proved. There was no meeting of the minds between the Appellant and the other Accused Persons in the trial Court.
The consequences of presumption of innocence in favour of an Accused Person are that the burden placed on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused Person beyond reasonable doubt must be satisfied. If not, the slightest doubt raised by the Accused Person shall lead the Court to resolve the doubt in favour of the Accused Person. See IFEJIRIKA VS. THE STATE (1999) 3 NWLR PT. 593, PG. 59.
The Respondent has not been able to prove the ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy, trafficking, buying and selling Human Parts against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
This Appeal is meritorious. It is hereby allowed. The Judgment of the lower Court is hereby set aside.
The Appellant is hereby discharged and acquitted on all the Counts of the Charge proffered against the Appellant.
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA. I entirely agree with the reasoning and decision that the appeal is meritorious. I too, allow same and accordingly set aside the judgment of the lower Court. I abide by the order made that the appellant be discharged and acquitted.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read in advance, the judgment of my learned brother UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA. I agree with his lordship that this appeal has merit. It is hereby allowed. I abide by the consequential orders made therein.
Appearances:
TAIYE ONIYIDE, ESQ., with him, TOMILEYE OMOLE, ESQ. and ISAAC AJAYI, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
ISSA ZAKARI, ESQ., PRINCIPAL STATE COUNSEL (PSC), with him, KEMISOLA AFOLABI, ESQ., SENIOR STATE COUNSEL (SSC); MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, ILORIN, KWARA STATE For Respondent(s)