SALE V. STATE (2025)

Background

Sale v. State concerned an appeal against the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery under sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The proceedings arose from an armed attack on 13 July 2006 along the Kwoi–Jos Road in Kaduna State. Ojile Emmanuel, a staff member of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, was travelling with colleagues in a Jeep and a pilot vehicle when armed men blocked the road, opened fire and surrounded the vehicles. The driver of the Jeep and another member of the convoy were killed. Approximately N2 million was taken from the victims.

The prosecution’s evidence was that several attackers wore police-style clothing, carried AK-47 rifles and some wore masks. The appellant was allegedly unmasked and was identified by PW1 as the person who intervened to prevent the attackers from killing him and his superior. Following a later operation by the State Security Service, the appellant and other members of the alleged gang were arrested. They led the authorities to a location where weapons and ammunition were concealed. The prosecution also tendered the Hausa and English versions of the appellant’s extra-judicial statements as Exhibits 3 and 3A. In those statements, the appellant admitted participating in an operation on the Kwoi Road during which N2 million was taken and stated that he received N300,000 as his share.

The Kaduna State High Court convicted the appellant and his co-accused persons and sentenced them to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal, Kaduna, affirmed the decision on 18 September 2013. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the failure to conduct an identification parade rendered the conviction unsafe, particularly because PW1 did not previously know the appellant and the appellant was not arrested at the scene.
2. Whether the appellant’s denial of the authorship of his confessional statement deprived the statement of evidential value.
3. Whether the appellant could properly be convicted without being confronted with the confessional statement of a co-accused person.
4. Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and Court of Appeal should be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that the prosecution always bears the static burden of proving every ingredient of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. For armed robbery, the prosecution must prove: first, that a robbery occurred; second, that the robbers were armed; and third, that the accused was one of the armed robbers. The first two requirements were not disputed. The decisive question was whether the evidence sufficiently connected the appellant to the robbery.

The Court held that an identification parade is not invariably required. Where there is clear and credible eyewitness evidence, or where an accused person has effectively identified himself through a voluntary, direct, positive and unequivocal confession, a parade is unnecessary. It would serve no useful purpose to conduct a parade merely to establish the identity of a person who has already admitted participating in the offence. In this case, PW1 saw the appellant at close range during a daylight attack lasting approximately thirty minutes. The appellant was unmasked and PW1’s evidence identifying him and describing his conduct was not discredited under cross-examination.

The Court further held that the appellant’s retraction did not render Exhibits 3 and 3A inadmissible. A confession remains capable of grounding a conviction where the court is satisfied that it was made voluntarily and is truthful. Retraction affects the weight to be attached to the statement, not its admissibility. The inconsistency rule does not automatically apply to reject an accused person’s extra-judicial confession merely because the accused later gives contradictory oral evidence. Instead, the court must assess the confession by applying the recognised six-question test.

Court Findings

The six-question test requires the court to consider whether anything outside the confession shows that it may be true; whether it is corroborated; whether the facts stated are true so far as they can be tested; whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence; whether the confession is possible; and whether it is consistent with other facts proved at trial. The Supreme Court found substantial supporting evidence. PW1’s direct identification corroborated the confession. The recovered rifles, ammunition, uniforms, masks and other exhibits supported the account of an armed operation. The recovery of weapons after the appellant and his associates led investigators to the hiding place further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The Court also clarified that a voluntary and unequivocal confession may, by itself, support a conviction. In the present case, however, the confession was not standing alone: it was reinforced by eyewitness testimony, the recovery of weapons and ammunition, and evidence concerning the activities of the appellant and his co-accused persons. The trial court had not improperly used the co-accused’s statement as the primary basis for conviction. Any reference to that statement was corroborative, while the conviction principally rested on the appellant’s own confession and the independent evidence.

On conspiracy, the Court held that the offence is complete upon agreement to perform an unlawful act. It is separate and distinct from the substantive offence, and the prosecution need not prove that the planned offence was ultimately committed in order to establish conspiracy. The confessional statements and the coordinated conduct of the appellant and the other accused persons demonstrated a common agreement and intention to carry out the robbery.

Finally, the Supreme Court reiterated that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal unless those findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by the evidence or affected by a substantial error of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such perversity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on 16 May 2025, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts and dismissed the appeal. The appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, together with the sentence of death by hanging, was left undisturbed.

Significance

The decision confirms important Nigerian criminal-law principles concerning identification evidence and confessional statements. It establishes that an identification parade is a safeguard used where identity is genuinely uncertain, not an automatic procedural requirement in every robbery case. A reliable confession may eliminate the need for a parade, especially when supported by eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. The judgment also confirms that retracting a confession does not erase its evidential value, although the court must carefully test its truthfulness and voluntariness. More broadly, the case illustrates the distinction between admissibility and weight, the independent nature of conspiracy, the three recognised methods of proving a crime—eyewitness evidence, confession and circumstantial evidence—and the restraint exercised by the Supreme Court when reviewing concurrent factual findings.