Anthony Okobi V The State (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C.

The appellant and one Levy B. Nwonwu were tried and convicted on a two count charge of:

(1) Conspiracy to commit the offence of armed robbery contrary to section 3(b) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1970.

(2) Robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1970. by Desalu J. sitting at the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja. The particulars of count two which are of particular relevance in this judgment read:

“Levy B. Nwonwu (m) and (2) Anthony Okobi (m) on or about the 12th day of November, 1980 at Ajegunle in the Ikeja Judicial Division being armed with an offensive weapon, to wit, a revolver, robbed Alhaji Umaru Haibu and Aibu Isman of a sum of N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira).”

Twelve witnesses testified at the instance of the prosecution and only the two accused persons testified in their own defence. Desalu, J. in the concluding paragraphs of his judgment, said:

“I disbelieve the second accused that he did not take the N100,000.00 from P.W.1 . . . I prefer and believe the evidence of P.W.1 that whilst the accountant was counting the money, the accused and two men entered and that the first accused was holding a gun. I believe the evidence of Sambo, that this frightened him and that he ran to the office of second accused followed by the first accused.

PW1 said the first accused locked the door of the second accuser’s office and prevented them from going out to recover their money, I believe that the first accused threatened the PW4 and PW6 with using actual violence on them in order to retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained by agents of second accused.

In like manner, the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1970 speak (sic) eloquently as to this point and makes the same penalty available to both the principal offender and the accessory. I am satisfied on the evidence before me which I believe that the action of the first accused made it impossible for the PW1, PW4 and PW6 not (sic) to go out and retrieve their money. It is my considered view that both the first and second accused stole the money the subject matter of this action. I am aware that the first accused was an Assistant Superintendent of Police.

I am satisfied that he was lawfully in possession of the revolver exhibit E . . . Indeed, it was when they were in the office of the second accused that first accused threatened them with actual violence. At this time, it was not disputed by the second accused that he was present. He was in the company of the first accused in the room and actively participated in preventing the three Hausa men PW1, PW4 and PW6 from going out of his office to recover their money. ”

Aggrieved, the two accused persons appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal against their conviction. The Federal Court of Appeal (Kazeem, Nnaemeka-Agu and Mohammed, JJ.C.A.) after hearing arguments of counsel allowed the appeal against the conviction of the two accused for conspiracy and the conviction of the first accused for robbery, and they dismissed the appeal against the conviction of the second accused (who is now the appellant) for robbery. Nnaemeka-Agu, J.C.A. (delivering the lead judgment with which Kazeem and Mohammed, JJ.C.A. agreed) said:

“. . . There was no evidence that they conspired with other persons unknown as averred. In my view, the conviction of both appellants on count one cannot stand as the finding is in conflict with the charge as laid. . .”

Dealing with the complaint of the first appellant in grounds 3(iii) and 7, Nnaemeka-Agu, J.C.A. said:

“The contentions of the first appellant and arguments of his counsel in this ground could be summarised as follows: