Anyiam Godwin Vs The Queen (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F. 

The appellant has appealed against his conviction in the High Court of Eastern Nigeria holden at Calabar on an information containing two counts which are as follows:-

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE:

(1) Official corruption not judicial, contrary to section 116 (1) of the Criminal Code.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE:

GODWIN ANYIAM, on or about the 7th day of November, 1959, at Calabar in the Province of Calabar, being a person employed in the Public Service in any capacity not Judicial for the Prosecution of Offenders to wit; a member of the Nigeria Police Force, corruptly asked for £15 for your senior officer from Okefi Azu on account of anything to be afterwards done by you namely, not to prosecute Okeke Agwu for road traffic offences, with a view to improper interference with the due administration of Justice.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

(2) Official corruption not judicial, contrary to section 116 (1) of the Criminal Code.

The facts which led to the prosecution are that the appellant, a Police Constable, was given instructions by his superior officer one Ukpong, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, to make investigations and take particulars of a lorry he had stopped on the road because he suspected it of being mechanically defective, a suspicion which had been justified after the Vehicle Inspection Officer had tested the lorry. The appellant was also instructed to prepare a summons against the owner of the lorry. One Azu, who was looking after the lorry for the owner, was accordingly informed by the driver of the lorry. Next day Azu went to the appellant at the Police Station and begged him to withdraw the summons and not prosecute. The appellant said he was unable to withdraw the summons as it was his senior officer and not himself who originally brought up the matter, but that the officer had asked him to receive £15 before the summons could be withdrawn. Azu thereupon reported this to Mr. Smith the Senior Superintendent of Police who gave five marked £1 notes to Azu to give to the appellant, which he later did. The appellant was thereby arrested with the five £1 notes on him. His defence at the trial that the money was given in payment of a debt was disbelieved by the learned trial Judge, but for the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to consider this defence.

Nine grounds of appeal were filed.  Of the nine grounds, Counsel abandoned four and five were argued on which only grounds 2 and 3 need be considered for the purpose of this appeal. The two grounds are as follows:-

(1) All the essential ingredients of the offence were not proved in either count.

(2) The counts did not disclose any offence under section 116 (1) of the Criminal Code.

Counsel argued that the evidence before the learned trial Judge presented two sets of facts for which the money was demanded and was given. The first was that the lorry which was put off the road would be put back on the road if the demand of £15 were met. The second set of facts was that the £15 should be given so that prosecution might be withdrawn.

The learned trial Judge, it was pointed out, accepted one set of facts, as he was entitled to do, which was the second set of facts. But it was argued that the gravamen of the case for the prosecution, which the learned Judge failed to advert his mind to, was the fact that the demand was made on behalf of the Assistant Superintendent of Police who on receipt of the money would withdraw the charge, and that this evidence was hardly in accord with the charge before the Court.