VINCENT EZE v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13841(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 1st day of November, 2019
CA/IB/235C/2013
RATIO
BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
It is trite that the prosecution in criminal trial is required to prove his case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
See Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011.
– ABIRIFON VS. THE STATE (2013) 9 SCM PAGE 1 AT 5, (2013) LPELR ? 20807 (SC).
– JUA VS. THE STATE (2010) 2 SCM PAGE 68 AT 70. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
HOW TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL MATTER
The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods:-
(1).Through confessional statement
(2).Through circumstantial evidence, or
(3).Through the testimony of an eye witness or witnesses.
See the following cases:- ITU VS. STATE (2016) 5 NWLR PART 1506 PAGE 443 AT 465 ? 466.
– IGABELE VS. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR PART 975 PAGE 100.
– EMEKA VS. THE STATE (2002) 14 NWLR PART 734 PAGE 666 AT 683. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
ON ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF AN ACCUSED THROUGH EYE WITNESS REPORT
The evidence of 1st PW and 2nd PW set out above would reveal that the identity of the Appellant was not in issue at all, this is because the eye witness account fixed the Appellant to the scene of crime. The identity of the Appellant has been established. See the following cases:-
– ADEBAYO VS. STATE (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34 AT 35 PARAGRAPH C ? G.
– OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (SUPRA). PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
DEFINITION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Confessional Statement. A Confession is an admission made by an accused person. It is settled law that an accused person can be convicted solely on his Confessional Statement if same is made voluntarily. The said Exhibit ?B? was made voluntarily.
See the case of:- KOLADE VS. STATE (2017) 8 NWLR PART 1566 PAGE 60. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJOJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
VINCENT EZE Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court of Justice, Ota Judicial Division, in Charge NO:- HCT/6RC/2007 BETWEEN ? THE STATE VS. (1). CHRISTOPHER DIBIA (2). VINCENT EZE delivered on the 13th day of July 2011.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the Appellant and one Christopher Dibia were arraigned on a two counts charge of conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Section 6 (b) and Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R II Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The Appellant who was the 2nd Accused person at the lower Court and his co-accused person pleaded not guilty of the charge.
At the trial, the Prosecution called 8 witnesses and tendered in evidence Exhibit ?A? ? statement of 1st accused person at SCID, and Exhibit ?B? ? the statement of the 2nd accused person at SCID level.
The Appellant testified for himself as DW1 and did not call any other witness.
At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to 16years imprisonment.
The appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court appealed to this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether the trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant on a valid arraignment
(2) Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in view of the fundamental irregularities in the Appellant?s trial.
(3) Whether the trial Court was right to have convicted the Appellant solely on the Confessional Statements.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether from the quality of evidence in the trial, the prosecution proved the offence of attempted robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt
(2) Whether the trial of the Appellant was validly conducted.
At the hearing of this appeal on 17/9/19, the learned Counsel for the Appellant who was duly served with hearing notice failed to turn up in Court.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore argued the appeal. She stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court delivered on 13/7/2011. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 10/5/2013 out of time but by an order of this Court, the said Notice of Appeal was deemed properly filed on 9/10/13.
The said Notice of Appeal was amended on 22/2/17 and it was deemed as properly filed on 21/5/18.
The Appellant?s Brief of Argument was filed on 15/10/2018 and deemed as properly filed on 18/10/2018.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated further that the Respondent filed an additional record of appeal on 14/2/2019 and it was deemed as properly filed on 21/2/2019. The Respondent?s Brief of Argument was also filed on 14/2/19 and deemed as properly filed on 21/2/2019.
She adopted and relied on the said Respondent?s Brief as her argument in urging that this appeal be dismissed.
Pursuant to Order 19 Rule 9 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, the appeal was treated as having been duly argued.
I have carefully examined the issues formulated for determination of this appeal by Counsel for the Parties. I am of the view that the issues formulated for the determination on behalf of the Appellant is apt in the determination of the appeal.
I will therefore rely on the said issues.
ISSUES NO 1.
Whether the trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant on a valid arraignment. (Distilled from Ground 1 of the Amended Notice of Appeal.)
It was contended by Counsel for the Appellant in the Appellant?s Brief that the Appellant was not properly arraigned at the trial Court. He submitted that the error is fatal and it rendered the Proceedings null and void.
He argued that every trial must commence with proper arraignment of the Defendant and where the Defendant was not properly arraigned or was not arraigned at all that the entire trial will be a nullity no matter how well it is conducted.
He relied on the following cases:- IBRAHIM VS. STATE (2014) 3 NWLR PART 1394 PAGE 305 (SC) AT PAGE 324 PARAGRAPH D.
– PAGHER VS. STATE (2014) 17 NWLR PART 1437 PAGE 608 CA PAGE 632 PARAGRAPH H.
– OLOWOYO VS. THE STATE (2012) 17 NWLR PART 1329 PAGE 346 CA AT PAGE 370 PARAGRAPH D ? H.
4
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in the absence of any record showing that the Charges were read and explained to the Appellant and his plea taken stated in Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State and Section 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution there is no proper arraignment and the entire trial is defective, null and void.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following cases:- DUKE VS. THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR PART 205 PAGE 589 PARAGRAPHS B ? C.
OKEKE VS. THE STATE (2003) 15 NWLR PART 842 PAGE 25 (SC) AT PAGES 73 ? 74 PARAGRAPHS F ? A.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
In her Response to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006 which is impari materia with Section 284 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2017 which has repealed the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006.
?The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the most essential
5
aspect of arraignment is compliance with Section 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
She relied on the case of:- YAHAYA VS. THE STATE (2002) 3 NWLR PART 754 PAGE 289 AT 303.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the additional record of appeal and she submitted that there was proper arraignment and as such the trial at the lower Court was validly conducted. She urged this Court to hold that the trial of the Appellant did not offend the principle of fair hearing.
RESOLUTION
It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant was not properly arraigned at the trial Court and that the error is fatal to the trial conducted at the lower Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant therefore submitted that the proceedings conducted at the trial Court are null and void. But the Counsel for the Respondent referred to the additional record of appeal and she submitted that there was proper arraignment and therefore the trial at the lower Court was validly conducted.
Arraignment is the process of bringing an accused person/persons to Court in order to formally accuse them of crime or crimes.
6
The Laws governing arraignment are Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006 which is impari materia with Section 284 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2017 which has repealed the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006. Another essential aspect of arraignment is compliance with Section 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and it provides thus:-
?Every person who is charged with a Criminal offence shall be informed promptly in the Language he understands in detail of the nature of the offence.?
The stages of arraignment spelt out in Section 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution set out above is complemented by Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006 which is impari materia with Section 284 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2017 which has repealed the Criminal Procedure Law, Laws of Ogun State 2006.
It provides thus:-
(a) The accused person shall be placed before the Court unfettered, that is, without restraint. The accused can only be restrained on the orders of the Court
(b) The charge or
7
information shall be read over and explained to the accused person to the satisfaction of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the accused person understands the charge. Consequently, it is the practice for the Court to first inquire from the accused person whether he understands the English Language. Where he does not, the Court will provide an interpreter, free of charge. The interpreter must be knowledgeable enough in the Language understood by the accused in order to interprete the Charge to him.
(c) The charge must be read over to the accused person by the Court Registrar or other officer of the Court. This may include the bailiff, Court clerk or Court messenger but does not include the Police orderly of the Judge who at all times is an officer of the Nigerian Police Force.
(d) Thereafter the accused person shall be called upon to plead instantly to the charges read over to him.
The failure to comply with the provisions set out above was pronounced upon by the Supreme Court in the case of ? YAHAYA VS. THE STATE (2002) 3 NWLR PART 754 PAGE 289 AT 303 as follows:-
?. It has been settled by this Court by
8
a plethora of cases that once the Provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act and those of the Constitution referred to above (i.e. Section 36 (6) (a) are not followed in a criminal trial, the trial is rendered null and void ab initio. All the other matters that follow thereafter amount to an exercise in futility and are of no significance.?
In this appeal under consideration, a careful reading of the Additional record dated 11/2/2019 and transmitted to this Court on 14/2/2019 would reveal that the Appellant?s plea was taken on the 8th day of May 2008.
Then on 24/3/2009, the charge was amended and the plea of the Accused/Appellant and Christopher Dibia were taken again. On 24/3/2009, the charge was read to the Appellant in English Language and thereafter he pleaded not guilty to the charge. (See pages 104 ? 108 of the Additional Record of Appeal).
I am therefore of the view that the trial Court satisfied the requirement of the Law on a valid arraignment.
The Additional Record of Appeal showed that the Law was complied with on the arraignment of the Appellant.
