JAMES AFOLABI V. THE STATE (2016)

Background

James Afolabi was charged before the High Court of Kogi State with culpable homicide punishable with death under section 221(b) of the Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that he shot Abubakar Mohammed in the chest at Obajanna, Lokoja Local Government Area, on 27 February 2009. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered photographs and negatives of the corpse, a post-mortem report, two extra-judicial confessional statements, a gun, a blood-stained cap and scissors. In the confessional statements, the appellant admitted aiming a gun at the deceased’s chest and shooting him. The High Court convicted and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, dismissed his appeal, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold the conviction based principally on the appellant’s confessional statements.
2. Whether the evidence established that the appellant intentionally killed the deceased.
3. The appellant’s proposed issue concerning conviction for the lesser offence under section 224 of the Penal Code was held incompetent because it did not arise from any competent ground of appeal or from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

A free, voluntary, direct, positive and truthful confession may sustain a conviction without corroboration. Nevertheless, it is desirable to have independent evidence, however slight, showing circumstances making the confession probable. A properly admitted extra-judicial confession forms part of the prosecution’s evidence, and its reliability may be assessed by considering whether there is evidence outside it showing its truth, whether it is corroborated, whether its factual assertions are testable and true, whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence, whether the confession is possible, and whether it is consistent with established facts.

The prosecution must still prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. For culpable homicide punishable with death, it must establish that the deceased died, that the death was caused by the accused, and that the act was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. Intention may be inferred from the weapon used, the force applied and the part of the body targeted. A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act; shooting a person in the chest with a gun supports an inference of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court held that exhibits C and D had been admitted after a trial-within-trial, at which the trial judge found them voluntary. That finding had not been appealed and therefore remained binding. The statements were direct and positive. They were also supported by facts outside the statements, including the appellant’s evidence that he returned to the farm with Mohammed, the recovery of the gun, the evidence concerning the deceased’s death, the photographs and the post-mortem report.

The absence of an eyewitness did not prevent conviction. The deceased’s death and its connection with the appellant were proved through the confessions and surrounding evidence. The Court rejected the complaints concerning the alleged contradictions about the gun and the alleged defects in the recording of the statements. It held that the appellant aimed and shot the deceased in the chest and consequently intended the natural and probable consequences of that act. The essential ingredients of culpable homicide punishable with death were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 22 March 2012, affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence to death, was affirmed.

Significance

The decision reaffirms that a voluntary and reliable confession can independently support a criminal conviction, although corroborative evidence is desirable. It also confirms that intention in a homicide charge can be inferred objectively from the nature of the weapon, the manner of its use and the part of the victim’s body targeted. Issues not arising from competent grounds of appeal will be struck out.