OGHENEOVU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018)

Background

Akpomie Ogheneovu was prosecuted before the Federal High Court, Kwara State Judicial Division, on a charge of dealing in 77.7 kilograms of cannabis sativa, commonly known as Indian hemp, without lawful authority. The charge was brought under section 11(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, 2004. The appellant was arrested by officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) on 18 July 2011 and made an extra-judicial statement admitting possession of the substance. That statement was later tendered as Exhibit A.

When the charge was read and explained to the appellant in English, he was represented by counsel and pleaded guilty. The prosecution subsequently tendered the confessional statement, the recovered substance, the packing or substance form, and the government chemist’s analysis report. The documents and other exhibits were admitted without objection. The trial court summarily convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Illiterates Protection Law did not apply to the recording of the appellant’s criminal statement.
2. Whether the conviction could properly be affirmed despite the alleged defects in Exhibit A, including the absence of an illiterate jurat, failure to interpret the statement, failure to call the recorder, and lack of certification of the exhibits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that an objection to the admissibility of an extra-judicial or confessional statement should be raised when the document is tendered at trial. Where a voluntary confessional statement is admitted without objection, the accused cannot ordinarily raise the objection for the first time on appeal. The Court further held that such a statement, once properly admitted and shown to be voluntary, does not require corroboration as a condition for reliance upon it.

The Court treated illiteracy as a question of fact that must be pleaded and proved by the person asserting it. The record showed that the appellant had written part of the statement, signed it, and affixed his thumb impressions. He had also not raised the issue of illiteracy before the trial court. Accordingly, the lower courts were entitled to infer that he was literate. The appellant’s ethnic identity or the fact that he had only completed primary education did not, without more, establish illiteracy.

On the constitutional right to an interpreter under section 36(6)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, the Court held that the right must be invoked at the trial court. An accused person who is represented by counsel and does not request an interpreter cannot generally complain on appeal that an interpreter was not provided, unless the right was claimed and refused. No such request was made in this case.

Court Findings

The Court held that the Illiterates Protection Law was not the controlling legal framework for the recording of a criminal suspect’s statement to law-enforcement officers in the circumstances of the case. The relevant criminal procedure provisions and the Criminal Procedure (Statement to Police Officers) Rules of 1960 governed the process. In any event, the appellant failed to prove that he was an illiterate or that Exhibit A was improperly obtained.

The Court also rejected the argument that the exhibits required certification under section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Although documents made or kept by public officers may constitute public documents, certification is required where secondary evidence is tendered. The exhibits in question were tendered in their primary or original form, including through the maker or appropriate official, and therefore did not require certification.

A significant additional finding was that the conviction did not depend exclusively on Exhibit A. The appellant’s unequivocal plea of guilty, made in open court after the charge had been read and explained in the presence of counsel, was sufficient to justify conviction for the non-capital offence. The prosecution’s subsequent evidence only reinforced the admission.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. The conviction for dealing in cannabis sativa and the sentence of five years’ imprisonment were upheld. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Significance

The decision emphasises the procedural importance of making objections at the correct stage of trial. It confirms that appellate courts will not ordinarily entertain complaints about admissibility, interpretation, or alleged procedural defects that were not raised when the evidence was tendered. It also clarifies that a guilty plea in a non-capital criminal case can satisfy the prosecution’s burden of proof and permit immediate conviction, provided the plea is voluntary, unequivocal, and properly understood. The judgment further distinguishes primary public documents from certified secondary copies and confirms that the absence of certification does not invalidate an original document properly tendered in evidence.