ARIBIGBOLA AWOSIKA V. THE STATE (2018)

Background

Aribigbola Awosika and Tajudeen Adisa were prosecuted before the High Court of Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division, on charges arising from an alleged armed robbery operation at the residence of the Fowosere family. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, his co-accused and another person who remained at large conspired to rob the victims and entered the premises while armed with offensive weapons, including an axe, cutlass and machete. During the incident, money, wristwatches, mobile telephones and other personal property were taken from PW1, PW2 and PW3. The victims also testified that the doors to parts of the residence were broken and that threats of death were made to compel them to surrender their valuables.

The appellant was arrested by members of the OPC while travelling from Ijebu-Ode towards Lagos and was subsequently handed over to the police. He later led the police to Lagos, where his co-accused was arrested. At the State CID, the appellant made a statement which was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit A without objection. Although he later retracted the statement at trial and alleged that it was not voluntarily made, the trial court convicted him on all counts and imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings that a robbery had occurred and that the appellant was involved, but reduced the sentence to 21 years’ imprisonment on the ground that the prosecution had failed to tender the weapons allegedly used. The appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether Exhibit A, the appellant’s confessional statement, was properly evaluated and could support his conviction despite its retraction.
2. Whether the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 sufficiently identified the appellant and whether an identification parade was necessary.
3. Whether the prosecution proved conspiracy to commit robbery and the offences of robbery or armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the weapons were not tendered.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that a voluntary confessional statement may, by itself, ground a conviction where it is direct, positive, clear, consistent and probable, and where it relates the accused’s acts, knowledge or intention in a manner indicating participation in the crime. A confession does not lose its evidential value merely because the accused later retracts it. Once admitted, it forms part of the prosecution’s case and must be evaluated alongside the other evidence. The court should apply the recognised verification tests, including whether external facts support the confession, whether it is corroborated, whether its factual details are true and testable, whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence, whether the confession is possible, and whether it is consistent with proved facts.

The Court further held that the testimony of the victims corroborated material details in Exhibit A, including the breaking of doors, the operation in several rooms, the locking of the victims together and the use of weapons. The fact that the witnesses were related to one another did not make their evidence inadmissible or inherently unreliable.

Court Findings

On identification, the Court held that an identification parade is not an indispensable requirement in every criminal trial. It may be necessary where the victim did not previously know the accused, had only a fleeting opportunity to observe the offender, or was unable to obtain a clear view because of the circumstances. In this case, the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the robbers, there was light at the scene, the encounter was not momentary, and the witnesses identified the appellant shortly after the incident. The Court therefore found the identification evidence credible. It also observed that recognition may, in appropriate circumstances, be more reliable than identification by parade.

The Court treated the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence as minor discrepancies rather than material contradictions. A contradiction is fatal only where it concerns a material fact, substantially damages the credibility of the witness and creates a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Differences concerning the number of robbers or which victim led the assailants to a particular room did not undermine the central evidence that a robbery occurred and that the appellant participated in it.

With respect to armed robbery, the prosecution was required to prove that a robbery occurred, that the robbers or one of them was armed with an offensive weapon, and that the accused was one of the persons responsible. The Court held that an axe, cutlass, machete or knife could constitute an offensive weapon under the applicable legislation. Tendering the actual weapons was not a mandatory condition for conviction. Credible oral testimony and a reliable confession could prove that the robbers were armed, especially where there was no evidence that the weapons had been recovered. The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s contrary reasoning as a legal error.

Conspiracy was also established by inference from the coordinated conduct of the appellant and his associates and from the contents of Exhibit A. Conspiracy ordinarily occurs in secrecy and is rarely proved by direct evidence. The prosecution may establish it through acts and circumstances showing a common design to pursue an unlawful purpose.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the prosecution proved the appellant’s participation in the robbery and the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed. However, because the State had not filed a cross-appeal against the Court of Appeal’s sentence, the Supreme Court could not restore the death sentence imposed by the trial court. The 21-year term of imprisonment was therefore reluctantly affirmed.

Significance

The decision confirms important Nigerian criminal-law principles concerning retracted confessions, eyewitness identification, proof of conspiracy and the evidential requirements for armed robbery. It makes clear that a confession admitted without objection may still be challenged as to weight, but its reliability is assessed against the whole evidence. It also confirms that the prosecution need not tender the weapon allegedly used in an armed robbery where other credible evidence proves that the offender was armed. Finally, the case illustrates the procedural importance of a cross-appeal where a respondent seeks restoration of a more severe sentence.