ADENIYI OWOLABI V. STATE (2018)

Background

This appeal concerned the conviction of Adeniyi Owolabi, who was charged alongside Shola Famuyiwa before the Ekiti State High Court, Ado Ekiti, for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. The offences arose from an attack on the palace of Oba J. A. Popoola, the Oore of Otun Ekiti, on 3 April 2002. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, acting as members of a robbery gang, entered the palace while armed with guns and stole the Oba’s beaded crown and other traditional articles, bundles of cloth, a Mercedes Benz 280 SE vehicle, an international passport containing a valid American visa, N350,000 and USD 6,650.

The prosecution’s case was that the gang had been contracted by a traditional chief, identified as Otunba Oni, through Chief Bamidele, to attack or kill the Oba because of an existing dispute. The first accused, Famuyiwa, made a confessional statement, admitted in evidence as exhibit B, in which he described the gang and named the appellant as one of its members. The appellant’s own statement was not admitted because an intended trial-within-trial could not be completed. The trial court nevertheless relied on the testimony of the victim, PW1, together with the evidence of PW4 and PW6, and convicted the accused on counts 1 and 2. They were sentenced to death by hanging and acquitted on counts 3 and 4.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing principally that the lower courts wrongly relied on exhibit B, the confessional statement of a co-accused, and that the identification evidence was insufficient.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.
2. Whether the trial court improperly relied on exhibit B, the co-accused’s confessional statement, in convicting the appellant.
3. Whether the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW6 sufficiently identified the appellant and established the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and Court of Appeal should be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a confessional statement made by one accused person is generally evidence against its maker and not against a co-accused who has neither adopted it by words nor conduct. This principle is reflected in section 27(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011. However, the Court found that the appellant’s conviction was not based solely on exhibit B. There was independent and compelling evidence, particularly the direct testimony of PW1, identifying the appellant as one of the armed robbers.

The Court restated that identification evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person before the court was the person who committed the offence. Relevant considerations include the description supplied to the police shortly after the offence, the opportunity the witness had to observe the accused and the distinctive features noticed and communicated to the police. An identification parade is unnecessary where the accused has already identified himself or where the circumstances provide sufficiently reliable identification evidence.

For armed robbery, the prosecution must prove: first, that a robbery occurred; second, that the robbery was carried out while the offenders were armed; and third, that the accused was the robber or one of those who participated in the robbery. Conspiracy may be inferred from the surrounding facts and the conduct of the parties.

Court Findings

PW1 gave a detailed account of the first attack and testified that the appellant was present, unmasked and armed. The encounter lasted for more than an hour. The robbers forced their way into the palace, threatened the Oba and his wife, searched the rooms and removed the listed property. They also took the keys to the Mercedes Benz, which PW1 helped them start before they drove away. The vehicle was subsequently recovered in Ibadan.

During a second encounter on 28 July 2002, the appellant and the first accused again appeared at the palace. PW1 had another substantial opportunity to observe them. The witness described the appellant’s clothing, including a black vest or shirt and short knickers, in statements made to the police shortly after the incident. PW1 also testified that the accused persons identified themselves as the same people who had carried out the earlier robbery. Although no property was taken during the second visit, the evidence showed that the gang returned to execute the instruction to kill the Oba.

The Court held that PW1’s evidence was clear, consistent and substantially unshaken under cross-examination. His evidence was sufficient by itself if believed by the trial court. The law does not require a particular number of witnesses in either civil or criminal proceedings; the quality and credibility of the evidence, rather than the number of witnesses, is decisive.

The Supreme Court further held that both lower courts had made concurrent findings of fact supported by the evidence. Such findings are not ordinarily disturbed on further appeal unless they are perverse, unreasonable, not supported by the record or have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such defect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It affirmed the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, as well as the sentence of death by hanging imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Significance

The decision confirms several important Nigerian criminal-law principles. A co-accused’s confession cannot, without adoption, independently establish the guilt of another accused person, but it may form part of the background when there is separate evidence connecting that accused to the offence. Reliable eyewitness identification may be sufficient for conviction where the witness had a prolonged and unhindered opportunity to observe the offender. The judgment also illustrates that an identification parade is not an automatic requirement in every criminal case. Finally, the case reinforces the considerable restraint exercised by the Supreme Court when invited to overturn concurrent factual findings of two lower courts.