Michael Peter V. The State (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

U. ONU, J.S.C. 

The appellant, Michael Peter and one Sule Iro (the third suspect having died while on remand) were arraigned before Hunponu-Wusu, J. sitting at Lagos Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State, on a one-count charge of the murder of one Maria Jonah, an infant, at Moroga Village, off Agege, Lagos State, an offence punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. Cap.31 of Lagos State, 1973.

The appellant and the said Sule Iro, the latter against whom the charge laid was later withdrawn upon being reported dead, was accordingly struck out. In the trial that subsequently ensued, the prosecution called eight witnesses while the appellant for his defence, denied killing the deceased and called four witnesses.

The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence adduced by both sides, found the appellant guilty as charged; proceeded thereafter to convict and sentence him to death, which sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (per Ayoola, J.C.A. reading the leading judgment and concurred in by Kalgo and Pats-Acholonu, JJ.C.A.). Hence this appeal which the following six issues were identified in the appellant’s brief as arising for determination, to wit:

1. Whether the Justices of Court of Appeal were right in holding that the trial Court complied with mandatory provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Having regard to the Supreme Court decisions in Kajubo v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 721 S.C. Ewe v. State (1982) (sic) 6 NWLR (Pt. 246) 147 SC.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they affirmed that the trial Judge complied with the provisions of Sections 154(1) and 182(1) of the Evidence Act before P.W.1, a child of 13 years testified as a competent witness for the prosecution.
3. Whether in the absence of the evidence of P.W.1, the remaining circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial and relied upon by the trial court irresistibly (sic) point to the guilt of the appellant, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

4 Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the defence of insanity does not avail the appellant

5. Whether the appellant confessed to the commission of the offence of murder in the circumstances of this case.
6. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that there were no contradictions in the case of the prosecution that vitiated the conviction of the appellant.

But for the respondent’s issues 5 and 6 which in their setting are juxtaposed to the appellant’s issues 5 and 6, all the issues formulated by the respondent are similar in purport to the appellant’s. Before I consider the issues formulated at the instance of the appellants which I adopt in my consideration of this appeal, it is pertinent if only briefly, to set out the facts of the case as follows:

That on April 11, 1986 the deceased and P.W. 1 , Rebecca Jonah, at the time a 9 year old person went down together towards the stream at Moroga Village, Agege when she saw a man whom she later identified to be the appellant, carrying a bag. That the appellant asked for their names and she told him. That the appellant ran to the stream, left the bag there and ran back to grab the deceased by the neck. Whereupon, she (P.W.1) enquired what they (she and her deceased sister) had done and then explained how her sister was snatched away and she went to call the police. She further described how she was still affected by the trauma of appellant’s grabbing of the deceased from behind by her neck which frightened her and how the distance between the stream and the village was about one mile. She further narrated how upon being herself grabbed, she struggled and extricated herself and ran away, adding that she was not present when the villagers searched for her sister, caught the appellant and brought him to the Bale’s house at which many people including herself had gathered; that finally, while she identified him there and then as their attacker, although unable to identify the 2nd accused.

Issue one was argued first. The appellant’s submission on it is that the procedure adopted in taking the pleas on the charge as read and explained to the two accused persons in the records upon arraignment failed to satisfy the requirements of the law. It is settled law, it is therefore argued, that for an accused to be properly arraigned before a trial Court the following procedure must be strictly followed:

“(i) The accused shall be present in court

(ii) That charge or information shall be read over to him in a language he understands.

(iii) The charge or information after being read in such language should then be explained to him to his understanding.

(iv) The trial court should satisfy himself (sic) that the explanation of the offence charged was adequate. It is after observing this procedure that he can then call upon the accused to make his plea thereon.”

The case of Kajubo v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 721 was cited to buttress the above propositions.

It is thereafter contended that in the instant case, there is nothing in the records to show that the learned trial Judge saw to it that the charge was understood by the accused persons to his satisfaction. Neither is there anything in the record to show that the accused persons understood what the importance of the charge against them was all about before they made their plea, it is argued.