GODWIN OFUADORHO V. THE STATE (2018)

Background

Godwin Ofuadorho was charged before the High Court of Delta State, Sapele, on two counts: armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms, contrary to sections 1(2)(a) and 3(1), respectively, of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 2004. The prosecution alleged that on 31 March 2009, the appellant entered a communications shop at Yoruba Road by Cemetery Road, Sapele, under the pretence of purchasing recharge cards. He followed the salesgirl, Gladys Joseph, into an inner room, produced a locally made firearm, pointed it at her, and threatened to shoot her if she raised an alarm. He then took recharge cards, SIM packs and other items from the shop.

The incident was witnessed by the salesgirl and another person, who raised an alarm. Neighbours apprehended the appellant while he was attempting to escape and handed him over to the police. A locally made cut-to-size gun, two live cartridges, a red face mask, recharge cards, SIM packs and other articles were recovered. During investigation, the appellant made a statement which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A after a trial-within-trial. In that statement, he gave a detailed account of obtaining the firearm, entering the shop, threatening the salesgirl and taking the items.

At trial, the appellant denied committing the robbery. He claimed that he had been arrested at his residence following an altercation with the investigating police officer, whom he alleged framed him. He also retracted the confessional statement, asserting that it had been obtained through coercion. The trial court rejected his defence, convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to death on the armed robbery count. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, leading to the further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant for armed robbery.
2. Whether the alleged contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly concerning the denomination of the recovered recharge cards, created reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the appellant’s confessional statement was sufficiently direct, positive, voluntary and unequivocal to sustain the conviction.
4. Whether the death sentence violated the appellant’s constitutional right to life under section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that criminal guilt may be established through direct and credible eyewitness evidence, circumstantial evidence, a voluntary and credible confessional statement, or a combination of these methods. A voluntary confession containing a firsthand account of the accused’s participation is generally the most reliable evidence and may, in appropriate circumstances, sustain a conviction on its own. Nevertheless, it is desirable for the court to look for independent evidence, however slight, making the confession probable.

The Court restated that the prosecution must prove three essential ingredients of armed robbery: that a robbery occurred; that the robbery was carried out while the offender was armed with a firearm or offensive weapon; and that the accused was one of the participants. These elements were established by the testimony of the victim, the evidence of the witness who raised the alarm, the investigating officer’s evidence concerning the arrest and recovery of exhibits, and the contents of Exhibit A.

The Court further held that an objection to the admissibility of a document must be raised at the time the document is tendered. Since the appellant did not object to Exhibit A when it was tendered, he could not subsequently complain that it was improperly admitted or allege, belatedly, that it was involuntary. Retraction of a confession at trial does not automatically render the confession inadmissible or incredible. The court must examine the confession alongside the evidence and determine whether it is direct, positive, unequivocal and true.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the alleged discrepancy concerning the N500 Glo recharge cards was not a material contradiction. The fact that the salesgirl stated in her oral testimony that she did not have N500 Glo cards did not outweigh the evidence that cards of that denomination were recovered from the appellant immediately after his arrest at the scene. The prosecution was not required to prove every single item allegedly stolen where the robbery itself and the accused’s participation had been established.

The Court accepted the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal that the appellant was caught in the act or immediately after the robbery, that the firearm and stolen items were recovered from him, and that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was credible, unchallenged and substantially corroborated by Exhibit A. No special circumstance or miscarriage of justice was shown to justify interference with those concurrent findings of fact.

On the constitutional argument, the Court held that section 33(1) of the Constitution expressly permits deprivation of life in execution of a court sentence for a criminal offence of which the person has been found guilty in Nigeria. Armed robbery committed with a firearm attracted the mandatory death penalty under section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The fact that the appellant did not actually shoot or injure the victim did not alter the legal character of the offence, because the offence was complete when he used the firearm to threaten and intimidate her.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction for armed robbery. However, the lead judgment recommended that the Governor of Delta State exercise the prerogative of mercy by commuting the death sentence to 21 years’ imprisonment, calculated from 25 July 2012, the date of the trial court’s conviction and sentence. The recommendation was based principally on the fact that the victim was not physically injured.

Significance

The decision reinforces important Nigerian criminal law principles concerning confessional statements, proof of armed robbery and appellate restraint regarding concurrent findings of fact. It confirms that a voluntary and unequivocal confession can be sufficient for conviction, especially where it is supported by eyewitness testimony, immediate arrest and recovery of incriminating items. It also illustrates the distinction between a genuine material contradiction capable of creating reasonable doubt and a minor discrepancy that does not affect the central facts of the prosecution’s case. Finally, the decision clarifies that the constitutional right to life does not invalidate a death sentence lawfully imposed for armed robbery under the applicable statute, while recognising the separate possibility of executive clemency.