ABDULLAHI ALIYU V. THE STATE (2017)

Background

Abdullahi Aliyu was prosecuted before the High Court of Niger State for armed robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The prosecution alleged that on or about 30 March 2015, at a location between Yidna and Yandayi villages, Aliyu and another person, who was said to be at large, attacked Jibrin Tanko and his younger brother, Sani Yusuf. The victims were travelling on a Bajaj motorcycle when two persons allegedly blocked their path. The attackers were said to have been armed with sticks and cutlasses, and the motorcycle was taken after the victims fled.

The prosecution called five witnesses and tendered two alleged confessional statements attributed to the appellant. The trial court accepted the evidence of the prosecution, convicted Aliyu and sentenced him to death by hanging. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence, the reliance placed on the confessional statements, the treatment of his alibi and the trial court’s prescription of the mode of execution.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence of armed robbery.
2. Whether the trial court’s prescription of hanging as the mode of execution occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Applicable Law

The Court of Appeal applied section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011, which places on the prosecution the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. It also considered the established ingredients of armed robbery: first, that a robbery occurred; second, that the robbery was armed robbery; and third, that the accused was the robber or one of the robbers. Section 15(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act defines robbery to include stealing accompanied by actual or threatened violence. “Arms” includes firearms and other offensive weapons capable of creating a reasonable apprehension that their use may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although the evidence appeared to establish that a violent taking of the motorcycle had occurred, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Aliyu was one of the robbers. A conviction for armed robbery requires proof of the accused’s participation, not merely proof that a robbery took place.

The court rejected the alleged confessional statements, exhibits A and B. A voluntary, direct and positive confession may support a conviction even where it is later retracted, but the court must examine its reliability by considering whether there is independent evidence supporting it, whether its factual assertions are corroborated and consistent with proved facts, whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence and whether the confession is possible. In this case, the statements were materially contradictory and their authenticity was doubtful.

The police officers who recorded the statements admitted that they were written in English, although the appellant understood Hausa. The prosecution did not satisfactorily show that the statements were recorded in the language spoken by the appellant or that they were properly translated and read over to him in Hausa. This failure was particularly serious because the statements were confessional and the charge was a capital offence. The statements therefore could not safely be relied upon.

Court Findings

The identification evidence was also found insufficiently compelling. The incident occurred at night, and the victims allegedly recognised the appellant when illuminated by a motorcycle headlight during a brief and stressful encounter. The Court considered the circumstances capable of producing mistaken identification. In addition, the appellant’s alibi—that he was at the house of one Mundassir at the relevant time—was not properly investigated. Mundassir was not called as a witness, and there was no credible evidence demonstrating that the police had investigated and disproved the alibi.

Material inconsistencies further weakened the prosecution’s case. The victims said that the motorcycle was recovered by vigilante members and taken to the police station, while the investigating evidence suggested that it was recovered from the appellant’s house. Another prosecution witness stated that nothing was found on the appellant when he was arrested. The Court held that these contradictions affected the credibility of the witnesses on material matters and created reasonable doubt.

On the second issue, the Court held that section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that a sentence of death shall direct that the person be hanged by the neck until dead. Although authorities indicated that the Governor may have the prerogative to determine the mode of execution, the trial court’s prescription of hanging did not, in the circumstances, occasion a miscarriage of justice. In any event, the issue became academic once the conviction and sentence were quashed.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court of Niger State and ordered that Abdullahi Aliyu be discharged and acquitted. The decision emphasises that suspicion, weak identification, uninvestigated alibi evidence and unreliable confessional statements cannot satisfy the constitutional and evidential requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Significance

The case is significant for criminal trials in Nigeria because it reinforces the static burden resting on the prosecution throughout the trial. It also highlights the importance of recording an accused person’s statement in the language he understands, followed by proper translation where necessary. The decision confirms that a retracted confession is not automatically worthless, but it must first be shown to be voluntary, authentic, positive and consistent with independent evidence. Finally, it illustrates the duty of law-enforcement authorities to investigate an alibi, particularly in a capital case where an identification error may result in the loss of an innocent person’s life.