Peter Durugo Vs The State (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. G. KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C. 

On the 2nd July, 1992 the appeal of the appellant was summarily dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Court below was affirmed. I indicated on that day that I will give the reasons for my decision today. This I proceed to do below.

Peter Durugo is the only appellant now before us. The 2nd appellant in the Court below Christopher Uloh was discharged and acquitted in that court. Appellant is appealing against the judgment that he was convicted by the Court below on reliance on Exhibit “M”, held by the trial Court as of no evidential value against him.

Appellant and four others were charged with the offences of Robbery with firearms, punishable under S. I (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree 1970. The fourth accused Alhaji Usman Mohammed alone was charged with receiving stolen properly, contrary to section 427 of the Criminal Code.

The prosecution having failed to locate Alhaji Usman Mohammed, withdrew the charges against him. He was accordingly discharged. The trial proceeded against appellant and the other three accused persons.

The case against appellant and the three others were based on the following facts –

On the 19th April, 1980, David Attah lodged a report at the Ilupeju Police Station. Lagos, that he was attacked by a group of armed men in front of ACCESS HOTEL, Ilupeju, Lagos and the Mercedes 230 saloon car No. BN 363 OM in which he was driving taken from him. Dr. E.T. Atanu. P.W.4 is the owner of the car. David Attah was driving in the car with another person. Kofo Adetona.

It was not until the 30th May, 1980 that Appellant was arrested. He made a statement Exhibit M on that day, in which he narrated his activities relating to the snatching of various cars. In another statement dated 1st July, 1980 Exhihit J and J1 not too dissimilar in its details he related his activities in respect of the snatching of David Attah’s car. Each of the other accused persons made statements to the Police. The accused persons objected to the tendering of their statements. They argued that the statements were not voluntary; and were therefore not admissible.

The learned trial Judge accordingly tried the admissibility of the statements. He held that the statements marked Id. 1, 1d.2 for Christopher Ulo, 2nd accused and Id.3, Kenneth Udealor, the 3rd accused were not confessional statements, and that it was not necessary to consider them in the hearing. The statements were accordingly admitted and marked as Exhibits “K” “L.”

He referred to the statement Id.4 dated 30/9/80 and 1/7/80 made by Peter Durugo, the appellant before us, and Id.5 dated 30/5/80 made by Tesilimi Lamidi, the 4th accused. He tried the admissibility of these statements and found that the statements were made voluntarily. The statements of the appellant were accordingly admitted as Exhibits J and J 1. and M.

The statement of the 4th accused Tesilimi Lamidi was also admitted as Exhibit N.

At the trial, the accused persons gave evidence in their own defence and resiled from their statements already admitted in evidence. Both the 1st and 4th accused called one witness each. The learned trial judge regarded the statements of Appellant and the 2nd accused as confessional statements.

Although there was evidence before the court that 3rd accused was somehow connected with the 2nd accused and other persons by conveying them in his Passat Car, the learned trial Judge was not satisfied that there was credible evidence sufficient to connect him with the offence of armed robbery as charged. Third accused was therefore entitled to the benefit of such doubt and was accordingly not found guilty and was discharged.

Similarly discharged was the 4th accused, whose confession of stealing a Mercedes 230 saloon car was on the 15th April, 1980. The car in question was of a different colour and registration number from the evidence led by the prosecution. This evidence was at variance with that of the prosecution.