HARUNA ALHAJI GALADIMA V. THE STATE (2017)

Background

Haruna Alhaji Galadima, together with Sambo Alhaji Galadima and Shabe Alhaji Galadima, was prosecuted before the Jigawa State High Court for culpable homicide punishable with death under sections 221(b), 246 and 79 of the Penal Code Law. The prosecution alleged that, on or about 1 June 1996 at Kadagawa village in Babura Local Government Area, the three accused persons formed a common intention to attack and beat Safiya Nomau over a dispute concerning ownership and possession of farmland. The attack was allegedly carried out with sticks, a hoe and, according to part of the evidence, a spear. Safiya died from the injuries sustained, while her husband, Nomau, was also beaten and left unconscious.

The prosecution called five witnesses, including civilian eyewitnesses and police officers. The appellant and the two co-accused testified in their own defence but called no additional witnesses. The High Court found all three accused guilty and sentenced each of them to death. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed. Haruna Galadima then appealed to the Supreme Court, principally contending that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt because of alleged contradictions between the testimonies of PW2 and PW4, the failure to call certain witnesses, and the failure to tender his alleged extra-judicial statement.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Safiya Nomau died as a result of an act of the appellant.
2. Whether the alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of PW2 and PW4 were material contradictions capable of creating reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the prosecution’s failure to call the deceased’s husband and a police investigator, or to tender the appellant’s alleged statement, was fatal to its case.
4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish three cumulative ingredients of culpable homicide punishable with death: first, that a human being died; second, that the death resulted from the act of the accused; and third, that the accused intended to cause death or knew that death would probably result from the act. The Court explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond every shadow of doubt. It requires compelling and conclusive evidence producing a high degree of probability of guilt.

The Court further held that not every discrepancy in testimony amounts to a fatal contradiction. A contradiction will affect the prosecution’s case only where it concerns a material fact, is fundamentally significant, and goes to the root of the case so as to create reasonable doubt. PW2’s evidence placed the appellant at the farm and identified him as one of the persons who beat the deceased. PW4’s evidence, properly understood, was that he encountered some of the accused persons on the way to the farm and did not see the appellant at that particular point before he retreated and hid. The accounts did not relate to the same observation made at the same time and place; consequently, they were not irreconcilable contradictions.

On joint criminal responsibility, the Court affirmed that where several persons act pursuant to a common intention, it is sufficient to prove their participation in the joint criminal enterprise. The prosecution need not establish that every participant inflicted the fatal injury or identify the precise blow that caused death. The common intention manifested in the execution of the unlawful object may make each participant criminally liable.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the death of Safiya Nomau was undisputed and adequately established. The evidence of PW2 and the surrounding testimony showed that the appellant was present at the scene and participated in the coordinated attack. The evidence also showed that the deceased suffered blows and cuts to her head, shoulders and body and died at the scene. The nature of the attack by three able-bodied men using sticks and a hoe supported the finding that the accused persons knew, or had reason to know, that death would probably result.

The Court rejected the argument that the prosecution was required to call every potentially relevant witness. The State has discretion to call one witness or several witnesses, provided the evidence called proves the ingredients of the offence. The non-production of the deceased’s husband or Sergeant Sani did not weaken the case materially, since the evidence already before the court was sufficient. Similarly, the prosecution was not required to tender an extra-judicial statement that was not shown clearly to exist or to contain relevant evidence. The burden on the prosecution is to prove the accused’s guilt, not to anticipate and disprove every possible defence by presenting additional evidence.

The Court also reiterated that it ordinarily does not disturb concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts. Intervention is justified only where the findings are perverse, unreasonable, unsupported by the evidence, or tainted by a miscarriage of justice or a serious violation of substantive or procedural law. No such exceptional circumstance was established in this appeal.

Conclusion

The sole issue was resolved against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence to death was upheld.

Significance

The decision is important for Nigerian criminal procedure because it clarifies the distinction between a minor discrepancy and a material contradiction. It also confirms that reasonable doubt must arise from substantial weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, not from speculative possibilities. The case reinforces the principle of joint criminal liability, under which participation in a common unlawful purpose may attract responsibility for the resulting offence. It further confirms that the prosecution controls the selection and number of witnesses and is not obliged to call cumulative or unnecessary evidence once its case has been proved to the required standard. Finally, the judgment illustrates the considerable restraint exercised by the Supreme Court when reviewing concurrent factual findings of the courts below.