Background
This appeal arose from the High Court of Delta State, Agbor Judicial Division, where the appellant, Isioma Okejere, was charged on five counts under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act for conspiracy and armed robbery arising from incidents on December 20, 2005. Following a reserved judgment delivered on 2010-12-02, the trial court convicted the appellant on counts 1 (conspiracy) and 3 (armed robbery of N41,500 from Regina Agbotine) and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal, on 2015-11-27, dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds relating to identification evidence and alleged confessional statements.
Facts
On the material date, four armed men waylaid passengers along Igbogiri–Atabaye Road. They brandished guns, demanded money and fired shots. Victims included Roseline Katakpo (N34,000), Regina Agbotine (N41,500), Abraham Egbulem (N35,550) and Stephen Osaghao (N3,700). One victim raised alarm; vigilante operatives pursued and captured some suspects, including the appellant. Identification occurred on the spot; PW3 (Agbotine) also testified that the appellant confessed to the offense and begged for forgiveness. At trial, evidence on identification was challenged by defence, but the trial judge accepted PW3’s account and convicting findings.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold the conviction for conspiracy based on identification evidence rejected by the trial court and without naming or directly linking co-conspirators.
- Whether reliance on PW3’s alleged confessional statement to convict on armed robbery was proper, given that the defence rested and did not contest prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
- An appeal to the Court of Appeal is a continuation of trial, not a fresh hearing; appellate courts must respect trial judges’ findings unless clearly perverse.
- The trial court must evaluate all evidence, especially in criminal cases requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Conspiracy may be established by direct, chain or circumstantial evidence without naming co-conspirators; knowledge of the scheme suffices.
- Proof of crime may rest on (i) direct eyewitness testimony, (ii) voluntary confession, or (iii) circumstantial evidence.
- When an accused elects to rest on the prosecution’s case, he adopts all prosecution evidence and cannot later challenge it; this is a strategic gamble.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on 2025-03-07 by Adumein JSC, held that:
- The Court of Appeal properly affirmed the trial court’s findings on counts 1 and 3 based on credible eyewitness identification in broad daylight and prompt vigilante arrest.
- Identification evidence from victims who saw the robbers unmasked and handled the stolen money met the Osuagwu standard for reliability.
- The appellant’s decision to rest on the prosecution’s case meant he accepted all evidence, including PW3’s testimony of a voluntary confession.
- Absence of named co-conspirators did not invalidate the conspiracy count; circumstantial inference of agreement sufficed.
Conclusion
All issues raised by the appellant were resolved against him. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming his conviction on count 1 (conspiracy) and count 3 (armed robbery) and the death sentence imposed by the trial court.
Significance
This decision clarifies that: (a) appellate courts in Nigeria treat appeals as continuations of trial; (b) trial judges must evaluate all evidence before convicting; (c) conspiracies can be inferred without naming co-conspirators; (d) an accused who rests on the prosecution’s case accepts all evidence led; and (e) direct eyewitness testimony and voluntary confessions remain valid modes of proof in armed robbery prosecutions.