The State V. Collins Ojo Aibangbee & Anor. (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C. 

This is an unusual appeal, in the sense that it is the prosecutor, and not the persons accused of the offence in the trial Court, that has appealed to this Court. In the Court of Appeal, the first Respondent herein was the Appellant as he was convicted by the trial Court. The State appealed against the discharge of the 2nd Respondent herein.

It is better to state the facts. And these facts are as contained in the evidence of the 3rd prosecution witness Moses Isumu, a day-watch in the employment of one S. I. O. Giwa-Amu.

On the fateful day, five people (including the driver) drove a blue car a Peugeot 404 Saloon, into the premises of the said Giwa-Amu. One of the occupants of the car came out, (he was Collins Aibangbee) asked Isumu if Giwa-Amu was in the office. Isumu told Aibangbee that Giwa-Amu had not yet been in the office. That man (Aibangbee) looked at his watch and said that Giwa-Amu ought to have been in the office as the time was already about 10 o’clock in the morning.

At that time, Daniel Kayode Giwa-Amu (the deceased) was already in the office. For he opened his office window, and called Aibangbee. Following this call, Aibangbee and another occupant of the car went up to the deceased’s office. The two came back, went into their car, and they drove away with the others. But, again, they came back. This time, they drove into the premises. Four came out of the car, leaving the driver inside. Two entered the office, the other two were outside. Gun shots were heard from inside the office and as Isumu attempted to rush inside to find out what happened, Obasuyi, one of the two outside, held his shirt, pointed a gun at him and threatened to shoot him if he shouted. Aibangbee and the other man, who had entered the office came out. All four entered their car and drove off.

The deceased had been shot on the chest and head, lying on the ground, blood gushing out from his head and chest.

During the police investigation, Isumu told the police he could identify the culprits. An identification parade was eventually mounted, there were ten people on the line but the witness identified 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Isumu was the only eye witness. His evidence would be of the most importance and hence he was rigorously cross-examined by the learned counsel representing both Respondents. The learned trial Judge R. A. I. Ogbobine J. realised that. He called the cross-examination onslaught and said-

“Be that as it may, at the time the assailants came to the premises at about 10a.m. on the fateful day they met the gateman Moses Isumu (P.W.3) who was the principal witness in this case and he testified before me. It does appear to me that the entire prosecution of this case rested very squarely on the statements made by him to the police and the evidence given in court by him. He was thoroughly examined, giving evidence on what he saw and did. I was satisfied that he properly withstood the agony of counsel’s onslaught on him.”

(Italics supplied)

The medical officer who examined the corpse certified the cause of death of the deceased to be due to “fatal head injuries and haemorrhage shock caused by gun shots”. He said,

“At least, two different guns were used. The shots could not have been self-inflicted.”

With regard to this evidence, the learned trial Judge held it corroborated the story of Isumu that the deceased was shot.

The whole case therefore rested on the ability and opportunity of Isumu to identify the culprits who did it. The deceased was shot. Four people came with a driver to the scene prior to the shooting. Two of them went in and shot the deceased. One of the other two held the shirt of the witness and at gun point threatened to kill him if he shouted. Who were the culprits Were the two identified by the witness among the four that perpetrated such a dastardly and inhumane act even during bright day light Let us see the reaction of the two accused.