3PLR – AWONUGA V. THE QUEEN

POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS  3PLR

[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]

AWONUGA

V.

THE QUEEN

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

21ST MARCH, 1958

F.S.C.279/1957

3PLR/1958/13 (FSC)

 

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

M.C. NAGEON DE LESTANG, AG. F.C.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)

SIR HENLEY COUSSEY, AG. F.J.

ROBERT YORKE HEDGES, AG. F.J.

 

BETWEEN

  1. GABRIEL AWONUGA
  2. MALLAM BAIWA
  3. MICHAEL EMENIKE

AND

THE QUEEN

REPRESENTATION:

S.O. Lambo -for 1st Appellant. A.G.F. Razaq – for 2nd Appellant.

3rd Appellant in person.

C.H.E. Miller -for Respondent

 

MAIN ISSUES

APPEAL – Finding of fact – Attitude of Appellate Court

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Accomplice – Evidence of – Not corroborated – Effect

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Conspiracy – Proof of

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Suspicion – Not basis for convic­tion

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Vehicle permits – official corruption

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE- Evidence of an accomplice -Absence of corroboration – Effect

 

MAIN JUDGMENT

DE LESTANG, AG. F.C.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):

The appellants were jointly tried and convicted of conspiracy contra section 516 of the Criminal Code. All three appellants were at the material times employed by the P.W.D. and the conspiracy in question consisted of an ag­reement between them to accept for the performance of their duties re­wards, beyond their proper pay and emoluments, from members of the public applying for Heavy Vehicle Permits from the P.W.D.

The only ground of appeal argued on behalf of appellant 1, Gabriel Awonuga, was “That there is no evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the appellant conspired with the accused to commit the acts al­leged to amount to an offence under section 99 of the Criminal Code.” Mr. Lambo’s main argument on this ground of appeal was that the statement given by this appellant to the Police had been wrongly admitted in evidence. That statement was highly incriminating. The. appellant did not deny making it, but when it was tendered in evidence at the trial objection was taken to its admission on the ground that it was not voluntary, whereupon the learned trial Judge held a “trial within a trial” at the end of which he ruled that the statement was admissible. Mr. Lambo submitted that he ought not to have so ruled in view of the allegations which the appellant had made. It is suffi­cient to say that the learned trial Judge disbelieved the appellant and be­lieved the Police Officer who recorded the statement. It is impossible for us to say that he was wrong, since in coming to his decision he had the advan­tage, which is denied to us, of seeing and hearing the Police Officer and the accused give their evidence. But quite apart from this incriminating state­ment there was, in our view, good evidence against appellant 1. Two letters, Exhibits “1A” and “1B,” which he admitted writing to appellant 3, estab­lished clearly the existence of conspiracy between them in regard to Heavy Vehicle Permits. There is, therefore, no substance in appellant 1’s appeal.

 

It is convenient to deal next with the appeal of appellant 3. His com­plaint was that a copy of a letter purporting to have been written by him to appellant 1 was wrongly received in evidence. That letter was found among this appellant’s papers in his house. In our view it was admissible in evidence against him and it established clearly the existence of the conspiracy charged. There is no merit in his appeal also.

 

The case of appellant 2 is somewhat different. He was the messenger employed in the P.W.D. office at Kaduna where appellant 3 was the clerk who had charge of the preparation of Heavy Vehicle Permits after they had been approved. The only real evidence against him is that of Amani Kano who said in effect that he paid money to this appellant and subsequently re­ceived permits from him. The learned trial Judge held correctly, in our view, that this witness was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration. The learned Crown Counsel conceded that in fact there was no corrobora­tion and that Exhibits “1A.” “1B” and “2” tended to show that this appellant was not in the conspiracy. Strong suspicion certainly attaches to this appel­lant, but we do not think that the charge was made out against him.

 

In the result the appeals of appellant 1 and appellant 3 are dismissed and that of appellant 2 is allowed. A verdict of acquittal must be entered in this case.

 

COUSSEY, AG. F.J.: I concur.

 

HEDGES, AG. F.J.: I concur.

 

Appeals of 1st and 3rd Appellants Dismissed.

 

Appeal of 2nd Appellant allowed

error: Our Content is protected!! Contact us to get the resources...
Subscribe!