THE STATE V. AYIMI SHAIBU ODOMO (2018)

Background

This appeal arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered on 9 May 2013, which set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on Ayimi Shaibu Odomo by the Kogi State High Court. The respondent had been tried alongside two other accused persons on charges of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death, contrary to sections 97(1) and 221(a) of the Penal Code Law of Kogi State.

The prosecution alleged that on 20 January 2009 the respondent and several other persons drove in a golf car to Achagana Junction, Adogo, in Ajaokuta Local Government Area, and began shooting sporadically into the air. In the course of the incident, Jimoh Adabara was shot and killed. The prosecution relied principally on the evidence of the deceased’s father and uncle, who identified the respondent and the other accused persons as members of the group. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s case, rejected the respondent’s defence of alibi, convicted him and imposed the prescribed sentence.

The respondent’s case was that he was the youth president in Ajaokuta and had gone to report incidents of fighting and extortion to traditional and police authorities. He maintained that, at the material time, he was at the Adogo Police Station with mobile policemen and the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), and therefore could not have been at the scene of the killing.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to set aside the trial court’s judgment after rejecting the prosecution’s case and accepting the respondent’s defence of alibi.
2. Whether the evidence of the prosecution contained material contradictions sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the grounds filed in the Supreme Court were competent, having regard to section 233(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal entered by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the prosecution bears the static and continuing burden of proving every essential ingredient of a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt under section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. That burden does not shift to the accused merely because the accused has been charged or called upon to answer the prosecution’s evidence.

For culpable homicide punishable with death, the prosecution must prove that a human being died, that the death was caused by the accused, and that the accused caused the death intentionally or knew that death was the probable consequence of his act. Failure to prove any one of these ingredients is fatal to the charge.

The Court explained that “alibi” means “elsewhere.” It is an exculpatory defence by which an accused asserts that he was at a location other than the crime scene when the offence was committed. An accused who relies on alibi should raise it at the earliest opportunity, preferably in the statement made to the police, and must provide sufficient particulars of his whereabouts and the persons who were with him. Once a detailed and timely alibi is raised, the police have a duty to investigate it. Failure to investigate may leave a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

Although the evidential burden of initially raising the defence rests on the accused and is discharged on the balance of probabilities, the ultimate burden remains on the prosecution to disprove the alibi beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the respondent raised the alibi promptly. The investigating police officers admitted that he said he was with the DPO at the relevant time. The DPO also testified in a manner that supported the respondent’s account. The prosecution neither properly investigated nor rebutted that evidence.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution evidence was materially inconsistent. The eyewitnesses attributed the shooting to the second accused, while the investigating police evidence indicated that the complainants had admitted that the confusion at the scene made it impossible to know who actually shot the deceased. The Court held that these were not minor discrepancies but contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution’s case and the reliability of its witnesses.

Where material contradictions create serious doubt, a court cannot selectively accept some prosecution evidence and reject other evidence without resolving the conflict. The doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. The trial judge had even observed that the police witnesses had effectively testified in support of the defence, yet proceeded to convict the respondent. The Supreme Court regarded that approach as a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Eko further observed that all four grounds of appeal appeared to challenge findings of fact or mixed law and fact. Under section 233(3) of the 1999 Constitution, an appeal on facts or mixed law and fact requires leave. Since the necessary leave had not been obtained, the grounds were incompetent. His Lordship criticised the practice of filing incompetent appeals in the Supreme Court without the required leave.

Conclusion

The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside the respondent’s conviction and sentence and acquitted him.

Significance

The decision reinforces the constitutional and evidential safeguards applicable in capital criminal trials. It confirms that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a demanding but not impossible standard, and that the prosecution must establish that the accused, and no other person, committed the offence. It also emphasises the practical importance of investigating an alibi promptly and fairly. Where police investigators receive information capable of showing that the accused was elsewhere, their failure to verify it may itself generate reasonable doubt. The case further serves as a procedural warning to counsel that appeals to the Supreme Court challenging facts or mixed law and fact must be brought only with the leave required by the Constitution.