OGUNTAYO v. STATE (2020)

OGUNTAYO v. STATE

(2020)LCN/15307(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, June 05, 2020

CA/IB/192C/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Fatima Omoro Akinbami Justice of the Court of Appeal

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

IDOWU OGUNTAYO APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

In deciding whether the offence of murder has been made out, the following are the requirements:
1. That the deceased died;
2. That the death was caused by the accused; and
3. That the act of the accused which caused the death was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
All three ingredients must be proved without any of them missing, I hold. SeeIgba v State (2018) 6 NWLR Part 1614 Page 44 at 67 Para D-E per Peter-Odili JSC.
See also Njokwu v State (2013) 2 NWLR Part 1339 Page 548, Edoho v State (2010) 14 NWLR Pt.1214 Page 651. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

It is settled law that the guilt of the accused can be proved in the following ways:
1. Direct evidence i.e. the testimony of an eye witness;
2. The confession of the accused;

Circumstantial evidence which points unequivocally that it was the accused and no other person that committed the offence. SeeEmeka v State (2001) 14 NWLR Part 734 Page 668 at 683.

It is also settled law that a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence, although, separate from the main offence, where the facts are intricately interwoven, the Courts are enjoined to deal with the main offence first, as, if the substantive offence is unproven, the case for conspiracy in such circumstances collapses. See Sule v State (2009) 17 NWLR Part 1169 Page 33. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

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

The law is settled that an accused can be convicted solely on his confessional statement. There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Where, as in this instance, the confessional statement is direct, positive and unequivocal about his commission of the crime he can be convicted of the offence…PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

METHODS OF ESTABLISHING THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

In Ogun State, the offence of conspiracy is created by Section 324 of the Criminal Code of Ogun State, 2006, which stipulates:
“Any person who conspires with any other person to kill any person whether such person is in Nigeria is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.”
Conspiracy has been defined by the Courts as:
“An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act by unlawful means.

WHETHER OR NOT A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE

As rightly held by the trial Judge, the retraction in evidence of a statement does not affect its admissibility. Once properly proved it can be relied upon to convict the accused. The Court should however ask itself the following questions:
1. Whether there is anything outside the confessional statement of facts which make it most likely or true
2. Whether it is corroborated in any way;

Whether the relevant statements of facts made in it are most likely true as far as they can be treated;
4. Whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence;
5. Whether the confession is possible;
6. Whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.
See Rabiu v State (2010) 10 NWLR Part 1201 Page 127 at 161-162; Nwachukwu v State (2002) 12 NWLR Part 782 Page 53. PER ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta Judicial Division, delivered on the 5th November, 2014 by Hon. Justice O.O. Majekodunmi convicting the Appellant and his co-accused on two out of the seven counts for conspiracy to murder and murder, contrary to Sections 324 and 319(1) of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006. The Appellant was the 2nd accused person before the lower Court.

Facts
The facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution witnesses, are that on 7/8/2010, at about 8pm, PW1 was in her shop with PW2, PW4 and the deceased, when the 1st-4th accused persons and others approached PW1’s shop with guns and other dangerous weapons, saying they had been paid to take the life of the deceased. The Appellant thereafter shot the deceased, who eventually died. The Appellant was charged along with three other persons vide an information filed on 6/12/12 on a seven count charge of conspiracy to murder, murder and attempted murder, contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code Law, Vol 1, Laws of Ogun State Supra for the death of Muri Salami and two others. The Appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the seven counts. At the trial, the prosecution called 11 witnesses while the Appellant and his three co-accused testified and called six other witnesses. In a considered judgment delivered on 5/11/14, the Appellant and his co-accused were convicted on two of the seven counts and sentenced to 14 years for conspiracy to murder and for the murder of Muri Salami, hereafter referred to as “the deceased”.

Aggrieved, the Appellant, by leave of the Court granted on 19/4/19 appealed against the said judgment, by Notice of Appeal filed on 23/4/19.

In his Brief of Arguments, settled by Oladoyin Awoyale Esq and filed on 11/7/19, four issues were formulated for the Court’s determination, namely:
1. Whether the trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant solely on the confessional statement (Exhibit D).
2. Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant.
3. Whether the trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant for the offence of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Whether the decision of the lower Court was right having regard to the weight of evidence to hold the offence of conspiracy to commit murder and murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant by the Respondent.

In the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments filed on 20/2/20 and settled by F.E. Bolarinwa-Adebowale, Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Ogun State but deemed properly filed on 24/2/20, a sole issue for determination was distilled, namely:
Whether from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial, the trial Court rightly admitted and relied on the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit D and F2) when convicting the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy to murder and murder, having considered the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant

The issues which arise for determination can be condensed into two, namely:
1. Whether or not the trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant for the offence of murder?
2. Whether or not the trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder.
1st issue for determination
The Appellant’s Counsel has submitted that the Appellant, at the trial, had contended that the confessional statement attributed to him was not the one made by him, as the one made by him was thumb printed and not signed. Agreeing that this objection does not render the statement inadmissible, it however affects the weight to be attached, he argued. Citing the case ofNwachukwu v State (2007) LPELR-8075 (SC), he submitted that a Court faced with an objection like the present, renders it desirable to have outside the confessional statement, some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight. There is no piece of evidence led by the prosecution to corroborate the confessional statement allegedly made by the Appellant to give it the necessary probative value. He argued further that from the totality of the evidence, the lower Court convicted the Appellant solely on his confessional statement, Exhibit D, based on the confessional statements made by his co-accused persons, which the Court used to corroborate Exhibit D, which the Court, by Section 29(4) of the Evidence Act cannot do.

The Chief State Counsel, in her response submitted that the weapon used by the Appellant was a lethal weapon and that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 showed the Appellant was in company of the 1st accused who was in possession of a gun. She denied that there were any discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, submitting that the statement of the Appellant, Exhibit D2 and F2 leaves one with no other conclusion than that the Appellant was among those who murdered the deceased.

The said statement, she said, was tendered without objection. A Counsel who stands by and allows exhibits to be tendered without objection cannot later complain about the same. The lower Court, she submitted, was correct to have considered and relied on the statements of the accused persons in convicting the Appellant and other accused persons. Agreeing that a confession of guilt is sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborative evidence if it is direct, positive and satisfactorily proved, she submitted that it is necessary to have outside the confession some evidence of circumstances, no matter how slight, which makes it probable that the confession is possible. The lower Court, she submitted, found corroboration of Exhibits D and F2 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which evidence was not challenged nor controverted during cross examination, thus corroborating the evidence that the Appellant was among those who killed the deceased. The alibi of the Appellant, she submitted, was not available to the Appellant not having been raised at the earliest moment and before his evidence in Court.

It is settled law that the guilt of the accused can be proved in the following ways:
1. Direct evidence i.e. the testimony of an eye witness;
2. The confession of the accused;

Circumstantial evidence which points unequivocally that it was the accused and no other person that committed the offence. SeeEmeka v State (2001) 14 NWLR Part 734 Page 668 at 683.It is also settled law that a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence, although, separate from the main offence, where the facts are intricately interwoven, the Courts are enjoined to deal with the main offence first, as, if the substantive offence is unproven, the case for conspiracy in such circumstances collapses. See Sule v State (2009) 17 NWLR Part 1169 Page 33.
In the confessional statement of the Appellant, he alleged that there were two rival gangs, Federal Mopol and Ten Mopol. While the deceased persons belong to Ten Mopol, headed by Muri, the accused persons, including the Appellant, belonged to Federal Mopol, headed by the 1st accused, while he (Appellant) was the second in command. On the day in question, they were all at the naming ceremony of Taiye Eleran (Butcher), when a quarrel arose, with Muri warning the musician not to mention the names of the Federal Mopol. In the quarrel that ensued, one of their own, Fatai a.k.a. Alabo was stabbed in the back. Their group then retreated to strategise on how to attack the Ten Mopol.

He continued that:
“Lobito (1st accused) received a telephone call from Muri a.k.a. Alata that if we are men we should come to the garage at Owode. When we were leaving All Saints Primary School for the garage as we were invited, we armed ourselves with cutlasses, bottles, sticks while our leader Dotun Lobito (1st accused) was holding gun. As we approached the garage, Owode Egba, Muri, now late, fired a gun shot at us but did not meet anybody. Our leader now returned fire thereby hitting Muri a.k.a Alata, Kehinde a.k.a. Shepo and Taiye a.k.a. Shepo. Muri and Kehinde gave up the ghost as a result of the gun shot while Taiye was later rushed to Ogere by his brother and went to extract the ammunition from his body but later died the second day at Owode town. But that same night after Lobito fired Muri, Kehinde and Taiye, the gang of Muri, that is ten Mopol took him to one Olabintan Hospital, Egba to revive his life so as we are coming having sighted us, the gang ran away and abandoned Muri aka Alata which made Dotun Lobito to fire him again. Thereafter Dotun aka Lobito now decided that it is not good for us to leave their body in the open, so we concluded (sic) in taking their dead bodies to a dustbin where plantain trees were and dumped them inside used plantain leaves to cover their body…”

In his evidence in Court, recanting, the Appellant claimed that he is a barber and lives and works in Lagos but goes to Owode Egba, his hometown, on Mondays and Tuesdays. He was informed that houses were burnt in Owode Egba and that the police were making arrests, and that they came looking for him. He (Appellant) proceeded to Owode Police Station and identified himself to them, only to be told that the matter had been referred to Adeniji Adele Police Station. He was interrogated in Yoruba and his statement recorded by the Police, following which he thumb-printed the statement. He denied that Exhibit D, allegedly signed by him, is his statement. He also denied knowing the co-accused persons, or the deceased persons. He denied belonging to Federal Mopol. He insisted under cross examination that he was at home with his wife on the day in question.

His wife, Mujidat Oguntayo (PW7) also testified, stating that she was at home with her husband on the day in question.

Referring to the confessional statement of the Appellant, the trial Court held:
“It is worthy of note that at the point of tendering the statement of the 2nd accused (Exhibit D), no objection was raised as to its voluntariness. The 2nd accused however told the Court that Exhibit D is not the statement he made to the police because, according to him, he thumb-printed his statement whereas Exhibit D is signed…”

Enumerating the six tests for verification of confessional statements, it held, after setting out the confessions of the accused persons in their statements, all which statements were similar to that of the Appellant, held:
“I find that the confessions in Exhibits D, E, G and H corroborate each other despite minor but insignificant differences …Putting Exhibits D, E, G and H to further tests, I have found that there are pieces of evidence outside their confessions which show that they are true and there are relevant statements in them of facts true. For example, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 is the eye witness evidence that a group of armed persons led by the four accused person pursued the deceased Muritala into the shop of PW1 on the night of 07/08/10 and shot him down. Also PW3, PW5, PW8 and PW11 testified that during investigations, they visited the scene (a ditch) where the dead bodies of the deceased person were dumped by the accused persons….As to whether the confessions are possible and as to whether the accused persons had the opportunity of committing the crime of murder, I must say that the existence of cult activities in Owode Egba are not in doubt, DW1 having admitted the presence of Ten Mopol in that town, besides, all the accused persons are indigenes of Owode Egba and live there….There is abundant evidence before this Court that the confessions of the accused person in Exhibits D, E, G and H are possible and that they had the opportunity of committing the crime. I find the confessional statements to be true.
The law is settled that an accused can be convicted solely on his confessional statement. There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. Where, as in this instance, the confessional statement is direct, positive and unequivocal about his commission of the crime he can be convicted of the offence… Besides the confessional statements of the 4 accused persons, the prosecution proffered the cogent evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW11. The evidence of an eye witness is the best evidence and it attracts the towers high above hearsay evidence… From the totality of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW11 coupled with Exhibit D, E, G and H. I find and I also hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the conspired and joint act of the accused persons that led to the death of Murtala Salami…”

The Appellant, however disclaimed his confessional statement, denying that it was made by him.

Whether the relevant statements of facts made in it are most likely true as far as they can be treated;
4. Whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence;
5. Whether the confession is possible;
6. Whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.
See Rabiu v State (2010) 10 NWLR Part 1201 Page 127 at 161-162; Nwachukwu v State (2002) 12 NWLR Part 782 Page 53.

With regard to the questions whether there is anything outside the confessions to show that it was true, corroborated and whether the statements made in it of facts are true as far as they can be tested, also whether the statement is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved, I find the confessional statement in conflict with the evidence of the eye witnesses, viz, PW1, PW2 and PW4.

The evidence of these prosecution witnesses is that Muri and two other victims were shot by the 1st accused in the shop of PW 1, while the other accused persons were armed with cutlasses, sticks.
PW1, Abidatu Salami, the mother of the deceased said:
“On the 7th August 2010, I recall that about 8pm, myself, Quadri and Doyin were in my shop, Muritala also was there. I then heard people saying inside my shop that they had been paid for Muritala’s life. I suddenly heard a gunshot. It was the 1st accused person that shot Murtala. I was shot; I fell down and did not see anything again. I was shot on my neck. I did not know what happened thereafter.”
The evidence of PW2, Aremu Adedotun Adedoyin, was to the same effect.
He said:
“I recall the 7th August, 2010. On that day, I was in the shop at about 8pm with the deceased, Quadri and our mother. We then saw a group of people armed with guns coming. The four accused persons were among them. Just before they got to us, I overheard them saying they had collected money for the life of Muritala. When we heard this, myself and Quadri hid ourselves behind the shop. It was from there that we heard the first gunshot and the 2nd gunshot which was followed by a wailing agony sound from our mother. We ran out and saw our mother on the ground. In our efforts to carry our mother, we were both shot (show marks to the Court). As we were becoming weak from the gun shots, we ran to the nearby State Hospital from where we were taken to another hospital where the bullets were removed from us. It was when we returned home that we discovered that Muritala was dead…”

The evidence of PW3, Alh Abdusalam Dada, the father of the deceased is that on the 5th day, they recovered the corpses of two of the deceased persons from a pit where they had been placed and roasted.

PW4, Alani Quadri, a brother of the deceased, is that when the accused persons shot into their shop, he and Doyin (PW2) ran to the back of the shop.
He continued:
“…we heard our mother shouting in agony. We ran back into the shop. The accused persons had earlier shot Muri. When we ran back they shot myself and Doyin also. The bullet hit me on my thigh. It hit Doyin on his head, hand and back…”

The confessional statements are however that the death of Muri arose out of a fight between the two rival cult groups as they were approaching the garage and that it was the deceased that fired first on them, following which the 1st accused fired back, hitting the deceased and two others.
It is thus evident that there is nothing outside the confessional statements to corroborate these statements, which is a requirement where a confessional statement is retracted.

Indeed, in a sister case, CA/I/262/2015 Dotun Sobunkola v State, in which the 1st accused herein was the Appellant, this Court, in the lead judgment of Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba JCA, further to stating the differences between the evidence of these same prosecution witnesses and the statements of the accused persons, held:
“There was no independent evidence corroborating the retracted confessional statement of the Appellant… In conclusion, the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the confessional statement of the Appellant Exhibit G was corroborated.”

The instant case is an off shoot of that case, in which the Appellant herein was charged along with the Appellant in CA/I/262/2015 Supra. The extra judicial statements of the accused in that case were in tandem with that of the Appellant in this appeal. This Court, I hold, is bound by that decision.

There clearly was no independent evidence corroborating the confessional statement of the Appellant, I hold. The lower Court was thus in error to have held that the confessional statement of the Appellant was corroborated. I accordingly resolve the 1st issue for determination in favour of the Appellant.

The 2nd issue for determination is:
Whether or not the offence of Conspiracy was proved?
The Appellant’s Counsel has contended that the charge did not indicate who the Appellant and his co-accused conspired to kill, thus leaving the charge at large. He asked this Court to apply the unreported decisions of this Court inKazeem Oseni v State CA/IB/94C/15 and Sobunkola v State Supra and also Sule v State (2009) 17 NWLR Part 1169 Page 33. He submitted that as the facts are so interwoven, the Court should deal with the main offence first, as if this is unproven, both charges collapse. There is no nexus, he said between the death of the deceased and the Appellant.

The Respondent’s Counsel however contends that conspiracy is established if it is shown that the crime alleged is common to all the accused persons. Proof of how they are connected is thus not necessary. The offence is complete once a concluded agreement exists between two or more persons that share a common criminal purpose. It is immaterial, Counsel said, that the persons had not met each other. She referred to the confessional statements of the accused stating the role they played in the death of the deceased.

The charge of conspiracy against the Appellant, which the lower Court held proved, is as follows:
“Statement of Offence
Conspiracy to commit murder contrary to Section 324 of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006
Particulars of Offence
Dotun Sobukola (M) a.k.a. Lobito, Idowu Oguntayo (M) a.k.a Elediye, Saheed Akinyele (M) a.k.a. Yahoo, Kazeem Oseni (M) a.k.a. Esho and others at large in the Abeokuta Judicial Division conspired to commit a felony to wit: murder.” Underlining Mine

For the prosecution to succeed, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
1. There was an agreement between two or more persons and:
2. That the agreement was to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
The trial Court held:
“From the totality of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW11 coupled with Exhibit D, E, G and H. I find and I also hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the conspired and joint act of the accused persons that led to the death of Murtala Salami…I find and so hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st accused who held a gun and fired shots at the deceased the deceased had an intention to kill the deceased Muritala Salami.
Now by Section 8 of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State, 2006, a common intention (as has been disclosed in this instance) will make the act of one accused the act of the other if the offence committed is in furtherance of the prosecution of their unlawful common purpose.”
I realise that the fact that an accused person is acquitted of the commission of the substantive offence would not mean that he must be acquitted on the charge for conspiracy, as a charge of conspiracy is a distinct offence. In consequence, an accused person may be acquitted on the charge alleging the commission of the substantive offence but convicted of the charge of conspiracy.
I however note that the charge against the Appellant of conspiracy did not allege that the Appellant conspired with others to murder Muritala Salami. It merely stated that they “conspired to commit a felony to wit: murder.”
This is certainly vague. In an unreported decision in a sister case of Kazeem Oseni v State CA/IB/94C/2015, where the 4th accused herein was the Appellant, my learned brother, Haruna Simon Tsammani JCA, in setting aside the conviction for conspiracy, held:
“Certainly a charge of conspiracy cannot be at large. It must name the person the accused conspired to kill. This is so because it is from the overt acts which point towards the killing of a particular person that will give a lead on the charge of conspiracy.”

This defect aside, it is clear that the facts alleging conspiracy are so intricately connected and intertwined that it is impossible to sever the charges of conspiracy from murder. In such an instance the Courts are adjured to deal with the main offence first, since, if the substantive offence is unproven, the case for conspiracy collapses. See Sule v State (2009) 17 NWLR Part 1169 Page 33; Kazeem Oseni v State CA/IB/94C/2015.
The prosecution in this case relied on the same evidence in proof of the substantive charge of murder to prove the charge of conspiracy. The law, as aforesaid, is that where the prosecution did not adduce independent evidence of the conspiracy but relied on the evidence in proof of the substantive offence to infer conspiracy, where the conviction for the substantive offence is set aside on appeal, the charge of conspiracy will also fail. SeeAlonge Temitope v State (2010) LPELR-3752 (CA); Kazeem Oseni v State Supra.
The logical conclusion is therefore that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of conspiracy against the Appellant. His conviction for conspiracy to commit murder is therefore set aside. I again resolve the 2nd issue for determination in favour of the Appellant.

Having resolved both issues in this appeal in favour of the Appellant, this appeal, I hold, has merit and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 5th day of November, 2014 convicting the Appellant for murder and conspiracy to commit murder is hereby set aside.
The Appellant is consequently discharged and acquitted.

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.: I read in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that cause of death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, I would like to add some few words, in every case where it is alleged that death has resulted from the act of a person, a causal link between the death and the act must be established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. The first and logical step in the process of such proof is to prove the cause of death. See the case of Oforlete v. State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt.681) at 415 and Oche v. State (2007) 5 NWLR (pt.1027) 214 at 233. The proper prosecution should have ensured that adequate evidence of casual link of the cause of death and the Appellant’s act was presented at the trial. If the cause of death has not been proved the voyage of discovery the culprit will be a futile-one. In the case of Iheanyighichi Apugo v. The State (2006) 7 SCNJ – 587. The Supreme Court per Niki Tobi JSC held that, “In a murder case, the prosecution has a duty to establish the cause of death with certainty and show that it was the act of the accused person that cause the death.”
For a Court to convict an accused for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person did something or omitted to do something he had a duty to do by law and that the said act or omission resulted in harm to the deceased. This has not been proved in the instant case. It is in the light of the above reasons and more details given by my learned brother Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie, JCA in the lead judgment that I too find merit in the appeal and it is accordingly allowed.

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment prepared and rendered in this Appeal by my Lord and learned brother, O.A. ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JCA. I am in complete agreement with the entire reason and conclusion and held that the Appeal by the Appellant is lacking in a jot of merit, it is frivolous and vexatious and therefore deserves to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 15th day of July, 2015 by AKINYEMI J. in charge No. AB/9R/2012 is also affirmed by me.

Appearances:

OLADOYIN AWOYALE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

E. BOLARINWA-ADEBOWALE, CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, OGUN STATE For Respondent(s)