Jesse George v. The State (1973)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C
The appellant, who was the accused in Charge No. PHC/26C/71, was charged with the offence of murder of one Goodwill Wilson Okia, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, on the 24th of February, 1970 at a place between Port Harcourt and Korokoro village.
He was tried at the High Court, Port Harcourt, in the Rivers State, convicted and sentenced to death on the 30th of September, 1971 by Inko Tariah, J. He appealed to this court against the conviction. The appeal was heard on the 21st of September, 1972 and dismissed.
We now give our reasons for dismissing the appeal.The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who was at the material time, a Lieutenant in the Nigerian Army, was stationed at Afam in Port Harcourt Division. The deceased was a teacher at the King’s College of Commerce, Port Harcourt. Both of them came from Egbede in Jonkrama village in the Rivers State. For some time previous to the date of this incident and for reasons of rivalry in the leadership of their village, the relationship between the deceased and the accused was strained.
The sequence of events leading to the incident of 24th February, 1970 as narrated in evidence is set out hereinafter:-
Because of the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased, some documents of a contract awarded to the deceased by the Shell BP, which had got a concession for oil prospecting in Jonkrama Village, were burnt up by the accused. The bags of cement supplied to the deceased were also carried away on the orders of the accused. Some few days later the accused who was at one time stationed at Korokoro as a Battalion Commander, ordered some soldiers from his detachment to burn down the dwelling house of the deceased at Jonkrama and this was done. The final phase of this unfortunate drama was the tragic events during which the deceased was murdered in cold blood on the 24th of February, 1970.
As we have earlier on stated, the accused was formerly a Battalion Commander in Korokoro Army Depot or Camp. He was subsequently transferred to Afam. On the 24th of February, 1970 in the morning, two relations of the accused came to lodge a report to him that the deceased had got them arrested along with four others, as being responsible for the burning of his house. They had managed to escape from custody and had come to lodge this complaint. The accused, on hearing this report, contacted the Intelligence Officer of the Nigerian Army at Afam, one Felix Ajibawo, who was also an Army Lieutenant in the 17th Battalion of the Nigerian Army at Elele in Afam. This officer gave evidence as the 4th prosecution witness at the trial of the accused.
He narrated how the accused came to him on the 24th of February, 1970 and reported that a certain former “Biafran Captain” was molesting his relatives in Port Harcourt, and he therefore would like some action taken. In order to investigate the complaint, the 4th prosecution witness, Lieutenant Ajibawo, ordered a 2nd Lt., one Oladele Olatunbosun with some soldiers to accompany the accused in an army lorry to Port Harcourt to invite the deceased to Elele Camp. The driver of the lorry is one Amadu Mayali, a soldier in the Nigerian Army No. 239573, who also gave evidence as the 5th prosecution witness. On arrival at Port Harcourt, the accused directed the lorry driver to call at two colleges looking for the deceased. The deceased was not seen. He later directed the prosecution witness to drive his lorry to a point near a cinema house at the junction of the new Port Harcourt layout.
It may be pertinent at this stage to give a description of the army lorry and the sitting arrangement on that date (24/2/70). The vehicle is a lorry with both sides built up but uncovered at the top. There is a partition between the driver’s cab and the open space at the back of the lorry. In this partition there is a glass port hole through which a driver could see the open space at the back of the driver’s cab. The accused and 2nd Lt. Olatunbosun (12th P.W.), occupied the front seats with the driver. The other soldiers were kept at the back of the lorry.
About 4 p.m. on that eventful day, the 1st prosecution witness, one Amerenute Ukachukwu, was seen off by the accused. When they got to a spot near the cinema house, the accused bade farewell to the 1st prosecution witness. As the 1st prosecution witness was moving away, he heard some people in a lorry parked by the side of the cinema shouting “hey! hey” to the deceased as he was walking home. The deceased did not respond and he, 1st prosecution witness, noticed some soldiers jumping down from the back of the lorry. The two officers, one of whom was the accused also got down. In evidence the 1st prosecution witness said that the accused, who was known to him for over twenty years, and whom he knew to be an officer in the Nigerian Army, gave orders to the soldiers to pursue and arrest the deceased. On being arrested, the deceased, who was wearing a pair of trousers, a round neck sleeveless singlet and a pair of sandals, was forcibly dragged and dumped inside the back of the lorry. On the orders of the accused, the soldiers pressed the deceased on to the floor of the body of the lorry.
The accused joined them in pressing the deceased down. In the meantime, the 12th prosecution witness, 2nd Lt. Olatunbosun had left the scene on an excuse. Without waiting for the return of Olatunbosun (12th P.W.), the accused ordered the 5th Prosecution witness to drive to Korokoro Camp. It was already getting dark at that time. As the vehicle was being driven towards Korokoro, the 5th prosecution witness, (the driver), stated in evidence that he heard the accused give orders “chuk his eyes, chuk his eyes”. After some time, the accused asked him to stop the lorry and he did so. The accused came down from the back of the lorry and sat by the driver in front. The driver noticed a short bayonet in the hand of the accused which was covered with blood. The accused ordered the 5th prosecution witness to continue the journey towards Korokoro camp.
On getting to a military road block, the soldiers on duty ordered the 5th prosecution witness to stop and to put out his head lights. He did so. The accused got out of the lorry and spoke to the soldier who had ordered him to stop.This soldier, whose name is Yekini Kuti, No. 240520 was at the material time attached to the 19th Battalion of the Nigerian Army at Afam. When he, Yekini Kuti (6th P.W.) recongised the accused as an officer in the Nigerian Army, he saluted and was ordered by the accused to climb into the back of the lorry. According to the evidence of Yekini Kuti who was called as the 6th prosecution witness at the trial, he saw a lifeless body on the floor of the lorry, with blood splashed over the whole floor and the two sides of the lorry. He also noticed that the body had pant on.
Previous to the arrival at this Military road block, the 5th prosecution witness, the driver of the lorry, had given evidence that on getting down from the lorry to sit in front, the accused had ordered that the deceased should be stripped of the pair of trousers and the sleeveless singlet which he had on him. He also ordered that the wrist watch of the deceased be removed. After Yekini Kuti, (the 6th prosecution witness) had got on the lorry, the accused ordered the 5th prosecution witness to drive to the Korokoro Military Camp. On getting there, the accused ordered the driver to stop and to turn the lorry towards the direction from where they had been coming. The 5th prosecution witness did so. The accused then came down, leaving behind inside the lorry, the corpse of the deceased and some soldiers including Yekini Kuti (the 6th prosecution witness).
The accused shouted for the R.S.M. of the detachment of the Army at Korokoro camp and ordered him to provide him with ten soldiers. As the R.S.M. was not quick enough in carrying out this order, the accused himself, went inside the camp and brought out ten soldiers whom he ordered to enter the back of the lorry. He then got on to the lorry himself and ordered the driver to drive towards the direction of a thick bush nearby, called “Gbenegbea bush”. According to the 7th prosecution witness, Cyrus Ahoka, who is a farmer and a counsellor in Korokoro Village, the thick bush was a juju shrine where no corpse was allowed to be buried. When the lorry conveying the corpse got to a spot near the bush, the accused ordered the 5th prosecution witness to stop. He (accused) then got down. He dragged out the corpse of the deceased and carried it all by himself into the bush. The accused took his bayonet with him.
After some time lapse, the accused re-emerged from the bush and called out the soldiers who were at the back of the lorry including Yekini Kuti (the 6th prosecution witness) and took them to a spot in the thick bush. There they saw the corpse of the deceased in a shallow grave and the accused ordered them to cover up the shallow grave with sand. According to the 6th prosecution witness, they carried out the instructions of the accused and covered the corpse in the shallow grave. They then returned to the lorry. The accused later ordered the soldiers to return to their camp.
The accused got on the lorry and ordered the driver (5th prosecution witness) to drive him to his house, which he did. After waiting for some time, the accused came out and ordered the 5th prosecution witness to take the lorry back to the Army Camp at Afam. The 5th prosecution witness did so and got to Afam at about 11.p.m. On getting out of the lorry, the 5th prosecution witness noticed blood on the floor of the lorry as well as on the sides of the body. He then got some water and washed off all the blood stains. He later reported to the transport officer of his company of his return.
On the 25th of February, 1970 the 4th prosecution witness, (Lt. Ajibawo) said that the 12th prosecution witness (2nd Lt. Olatunbosun) came to his office at about 8 a.m. to report his visit to Port Harcourt. While he was narrating this to the 4th prosecution witness, the accused came into the office. He interrupted the 12th prosecution witness and then informed the 4th prosecution witness that they arrested the deceased but on their way back to Korokoro, he (deceased) escaped from their custody. The 4th prosecution witness decided to follow the accused to Port Harcourt to look for the deceased. They traveled in a Datsun Landrover belonging to the accused to Port Harcourt. After calling at two or three places and not finding the deceased, he and the accused returned to Elele camp in Afam.
Subsequently, a report of the murder of the deceased was made to the police and the Army at Port Harcourt by the 1st prosecution witness and others. During the investigation by the Military Police, some of the soldiers, including the driver of the lorry, Amadu Mayali, (the 5th prosecution witness) and Yekini Kuti, (the 6th prosecution witness) were arrested. The 5th and 6th prosecution witnesses made statements to the Police about the incident on 24th of February, 1970. In consequence of their statements on a date in June, 1970 these two witnesses took some Police and Military Officers to the spot where the body of the deceased was buried. The place was dug up and a skull was recovered on the first visit. This was tendered in evidence as Exhibit H. On the second visit in August, 1970 on a further search of the spot where the skull was recovered, a bone structure,described as a thigh was recovered. It was tendered in evidence at the trial as Exhibit J. The skull and the thigh were parceled and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Oshodi. Later, a certificate issued by the Senior Specialist Pathologist was received and tendered in evidence as Exhibit F. A copy was served on the accused but he refused to accept it. The report reads:-
“I certify that I have examined this skull, it is a battered skull with the frontal portion of right parietal bone and the temporal missing. At the posterior part of left parietal bone near the suture line was an oval defect, about 2 inches across with the smooth edge anteriorly.
The portion of the skull must have been removed by the use of a sharp instrument, for example a cutlass. Soft tissues are still attached to the skull. The skull has been separated from the rest of the body at the second cervical spine by the use of a sharp instrument.”
2. In my opinion, the skull is that of a male person over 21 years old and had been buried in the soil for over six months. I am of the opinion that the injuries were inflicted during life and death resulted from the injuries. The left side of the mandible is missing. The mandible has been separated from the other through the symphysis mentis by sharp instrument. The right 2 incisors teeth were missing also separated from the rest of the mandible by the use of a sharp instrument
3. In conclusion, the deceased was battered to death. A sharp instrument was used to inflict the injury.
4. The exhibit is returned and a specimen seal is affixed to this report.”
The defence of the accused is a complete denial of the allegations made against him. He suggested that some members of his village (Jonkrama), who gave evidence as to his strained relationship with the deceased, as well as his arrest of the deceased on 24th of February, 1970 were his enemies. As regards the 5th, 6th and 12th prosecution witnesses, who are Army Personnel, he suggested that they told lies against him because they had been bought over by his enemies to concoct this story against him.
The learned trial Judge, who examined the evidence meticulously, came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses were truthful in their evidence. He rejected the denials of the accused as well as his suggestions that the case was “cooked up” against him. He held that it was the accused who, in company of other soldiers under his orders, dragged the deceased into a lorry and murdered him on the way to Korokoro camp. He therefore convicted the accused of the offence of murder and sentenced him to death.
In his notice of appeal, six grounds of appeal were filed by the appellant. Mr. Bashua, learned counsel for the appellant, argued all the grounds together and submitted that the conviction could not be sustained because there was no direct evidence that the skull and thigh recovered were those of the deceased.
He also submitted that there was no medical evidence of the cause of death. These two points were also canvassed before the learned trial Judge in the lower court and were, after due consideration, rejected.
We are of the view that there was no substance in the arguments addressed to us. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned trial Judge. We are satisfied that there was overwhelming evidence which warranted the conviction of the accused and we saw no reasons to disturb the verdict. For these reasons, we dismissed the appeal of the hearing.
Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1774(SC)
