OBINNA JOHN V. THE STATE (2019)

Background

The appellant was prosecuted before the High Court of Justice, Plateau State, for armed robbery contrary to and punishable under section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act. The prosecution alleged that on 18 November 2005 he, while armed with a gun and accompanied by another person named John who remained at large, robbed Dorcas Olaniyi and her son Samuel of N1,705 and two rolls of Peak Milk. The victims identified the appellant, and his confessional statement was admitted as Exhibit 3. The High Court convicted him on 21 June 2012 and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal, Jos Division, dismissed his appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The determinative issue was whether the trial, conviction and sentence were a nullity because the charge was signed for and on behalf of Mrs G. E. Dashe of the Plateau State Ministry of Justice, allegedly by a person who was not a legal practitioner. The appeal also raised related complaints concerning the proof of armed robbery, the absence of the gun as an exhibit, alleged improper findings by the trial court, fair hearing and the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court will rarely interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts unless the findings are perverse, unreasonable, unsupported by the evidence, occasion a miscarriage of justice or violate a principle of law or procedure.

2. Under section 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an objection to a formal defect on the face of a charge must be raised immediately after the charge is read and before the accused enters a plea. Failure to object at that stage means that the accused is presumed to have understood the charge, and the objection cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time on appeal.

3. The constitutional requirement under section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution that an accused be informed promptly and in detail, in a language he understands, of the nature of the offence is satisfied where the charge discloses a known offence and the accused understands it sufficiently to plead.

4. A confessional statement, once properly admitted, is the best evidence of the commission of a crime and may, where it is unequivocal and reliable, support a conviction by itself. In this case, Exhibit 3 was consistent with the unimpeached eyewitness testimony of PW1 and PW2.

5. The ingredients of armed robbery are: a robbery or series of robberies; the fact that the robbers were armed; and the participation of the accused. The prosecution proved these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to tender the firearm used in the robbery was not fatal.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court held that the charge described an offence known to law, was read to the appellant, and was followed by his plea of not guilty without objection. The alleged defect in its signature was a formal defect that should have been challenged before the plea. The appellant was therefore too late in raising the complaint on appeal. The Court also accepted the concurrent findings that PW1 and PW2 were credible eyewitnesses and that Exhibit 3 was an unequivocal and true confession corroborating their evidence. The rejection or non-production of the gun did not disprove that the appellant was armed. There was no miscarriage of justice or breach of fair hearing.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including the appellant’s conviction and sentence.

Significance

The decision reinforces the procedural requirement that formal objections to criminal charges be made before plea, while distinguishing defects that prejudice the defence from harmless irregularities. It also confirms the limited scope for disturbing concurrent factual findings, the evidential strength of an admitted confession, the statutory ingredients of armed robbery, and the courts’ preference for substantial justice over technical objections.