ABDULSALAM SULEIMAN V. THE STATE (2026)

Background

In Abdulsalam Suleiman v. The State, the Supreme Court of Nigeria considered whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence to death for armed robbery. The appeal arose from an incident that occurred at about 11:00 p.m. on 31 May 2009 at Dinkawa Village, Tukanawa Quarters, Charanchi Local Government Area of Katsina State. Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar had closed his shop, placed the day’s sales proceeds in the boot of his vehicle and returned home. At his residence, he and his younger brother encountered persons carrying torchlights. The persons identified themselves as thieves and threatened to shoot anyone who approached. The deceased was beaten, sustained serious injuries, struck his head against a wall while attempting to escape and died on the way to hospital. Money was removed from the boot of his vehicle.

Approximately one month later, the appellant was arrested following information supplied to the police. During investigation, he implicated another person, Ibrahim Abdullahi, and made statements in Hausa and English, admitted as exhibits 2(a) and 2(b). The prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered five exhibits, including a blood-stained stick and dark goggles recovered from the scene. The trial court struck out the culpable homicide count to avoid double convictions, but convicted the accused persons of armed robbery and sentenced them to death. The Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, dismissed the appellant’s appeal. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, particularly through the appellant’s confessional statement and the supporting evidence.
2. Whether the trial court failed to evaluate the appellant’s alleged defence of alibi and whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the trial court’s approach.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the courts below. The Court restated that, under section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 and section 36(5) of the Constitution, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the ingredients of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of armed robbery are: proof that a robbery occurred; proof that the robbery was armed; and proof that the accused participated in it.

The Court distinguished ordinary robbery from armed robbery. Robbery involves stealing accompanied by actual or threatened violence. It becomes armed robbery where an offensive weapon is used or carried in circumstances involving death, hurt, unlawful restraint or fear. The appellant’s statement showed that he acted as a sentry while armed accomplices attacked the deceased with a pistol and machetes. The Court held that a stick could constitute an offensive weapon within the meaning of the applicable Robbery and Firearms legislation, and that the appellant’s participation in guarding the operation and receiving part of the proceeds connected him directly with the offence.

On confession, the Court relied on sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act. A confession is an admission made by an accused person stating or suggesting that he committed the offence. Once a relevant confession is voluntarily admitted in evidence, it becomes part of the prosecution’s evidential case. Since the appellant did not object when exhibits 2(a) and 2(b) were tendered, no trial-within-trial was required to determine voluntariness. His subsequent retraction at trial did not automatically render the statement unusable. A confession that is positive, direct, voluntary, unequivocal and truthful may sustain a conviction, even without corroboration as a strict legal requirement.

Court Findings

The Court found that the appellant’s confession was clear and materially consistent with the independent evidence. He admitted being present at the scene, taking part in the robbery by guarding the route and receiving ₦30,000 from the stolen money. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 confirmed that money was removed from the deceased’s vehicle and that persons at the scene prevented potential rescuers from approaching by threatening to shoot them. The blood-stained stick and dark goggles also supported material aspects of the confession. The Court therefore held that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It further explained that the prosecution may prove a crime by confession, direct eyewitness evidence, circumstantial evidence or a combination of those methods.

The Court rejected the appellant’s complaint that the informant who led to his arrest was not called. The confession independently supplied identification evidence and effectively constituted self-identification. The Court also rejected the argument that the lower courts had failed to evaluate the defence of alibi. Alibi means that the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred. It should ordinarily be raised at the earliest opportunity, with precise details of the accused’s location and the persons who can confirm it, so that the police can investigate it. The appellant’s police statement did not raise an alibi; instead, it placed him at the locus criminis. His trial testimony merely stated that he came from Bauchi State to visit his mother and did not provide sufficient particulars or witnesses. The purported alibi was consequently vague, belated and inconsistent with his confession.

The Supreme Court emphasised that although a court must consider every defence disclosed by the evidence, it is not permitted to invent or search for a defence that is absent from the record. A court must restrict itself to the evidence before it and must not decide on speculation or conjecture. The concurrent findings of the trial court and Court of Appeal were not perverse and had not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court also reiterated that it has concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts in evaluating documentary evidence where necessary to prevent injustice.

Conclusion

The sole issue was resolved against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the confession, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence established the ingredients of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the conviction and death sentence imposed by the High Court of Katsina State was affirmed in its entirety.

Significance

This decision reinforces the strong probative value of a voluntary confessional statement in Nigerian criminal proceedings. It confirms that a retracted confession can support a conviction where the court is satisfied that it was voluntary, direct, positive and truthful. It also clarifies that corroboration is desirable but is not a mandatory precondition to relying on a confession. The judgment further highlights the practical importance of raising an alibi promptly and supplying sufficient particulars for investigation. Finally, it warns appellate courts against manufacturing defences or substituting speculation for evidence, while affirming their power to re-evaluate documentary evidence where the interests of justice require it.