Search LawGlobal Hub

Uche Williams V. The State (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

I. L. KUTIGI, J.S.C

The appellant was charged with the murder of one Blessing Ngozi Boms contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code applicable in Rivers State. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The facts of this case are well stated in the judgment of Ogundare J.C.A. who delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal. On 29th November, 1985, Ama Boms (P.W.1) who was the landlord of one Bassey Udoh had a disagreement with one Friday Udoh, a relation of Bassey Udoh over the volume at which Friday was playing his stereo set. Friday was staying in Bassey’s room who had travelled abroad then. There was a fight as a result of which P.W.1 sustained injuries and lodged a complaint at the Police Station. Consequently, Friday and one Anthony Ekanem who was with Friday at the relevant time were arrested and detained by the Police. Later in the day, the two arrested persons were released on bail to the appellant. The three of them together with two policemen and one other person called Atako went to the house of P.W.1 to plead with the latter to allow both Friday and Anthony spend the night in the premises. This was between 7-8 p.m. in the evening. They met P.W.1 with his father (P.W. 2) and the deceased (brother of P.W.1) P.W.1 refused the request of Friday and Anthony for fear that they may harm him. During these discussions in P.W.1’s compound there was a power failure and so there was no light although the witnesses said that there was moonlight. Following the refusal of P.W.1 to allow Friday and Anthony to spend the night in the house, appellant and his team proceeded to leave the compound with the two policemen in the lead. The deceased also followed them as well as P.W.2 while P.W.1 went inside his room. While still inside the compound however, the deceased raised an alarm and ran towards his father (P.W.2). As the deceased was trying to explain the situation to P.W.2, the appellant appeared and shot the deceased with a gun by the left side of the chest. The deceased fell down. P.W.2 raised an alarm and people rushed in to render assistance. The deceased died on the spot. After the shooting the appellant and his team disappeared. In fact, Friday, Anthony and Atako have not been seen since then. Later that evening, irate neighbours set ablaze the car used by the appellant to convey his team to the premises earlier on.

The appellant both in his statement to the police and evidence in court denied shooting the deceased. He said he was at the material time standing outside the gate when he heard a voice inside the premises to the effect that “he had been stabbed.” He then ran to the gate to see what was happening. As he opened one side of the gate a bottle was thrown at him. The bottle hit the gate and got broken. Some particles of the broken bottle hit his eye lens and cut his left eye lid. When the two policemen saw him bleeding from his eye, they ran away. He went by taxi to report at the police station that he was injured by an unknown person. He was later treated at a private clinic before returning home. On reaching home he went with his landlord to the premises of P.W.1 to collect his car. They discovered the car had been burnt.

At the trial, the prosecution called seven witnesses and closed its case. The appellant testified in his own defence and called no witnesses.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge in a reserved judgment found the charge proved and convicted the appellant. He was sentenced to death.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on a number of grounds and raised the following four issues for determination –

“1. Whether there was a plea to the Charge or amended Charge by the Appellant before the trial court?

2. Whether on the evidence of P.W. 2 and other prosecution witnesses it can be said that it was the Appellant and no other person that shot the deceased?
3. Whether the prosecution on the facts proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and consistent with Section 137 of the Evidence Act; R. V. ABDULAHI ISA (1961) 2 SCNLR 347; (1961) All NLR 668; ABEKE ONAFOWOKAN V.THE STATE (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61), p. 538 at 545, and as a corollary?
4. Whether the Appellant had a fair trial as provided in Sec. 269(1) of the CPC, and Sec. 33 of the Constitution?”

The Court of Appeal considered all these issues some of which had been raised before and determined by the trial court, and in a unanimous decision given on the 11th day of December 1990 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence thereon.

The appellant has further appealed to this Court. Counsel on both sides filed and exchanged briefs of argument on which they relied and expatiated in argument before the Court. In his brief Chief Jide Oki learned counsel for the appellant has formulated the issues for determination in this appeal as follows:

“1. Whether the guilt of the Appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt in the light of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses?

2. Can it not be said there was substantial miscarriage of justice and a breach of section 33 of the Constitution of the Federation 1979?
3. Whether the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.2 and P.W.4 are sufficient to affect the Appellant’s conviction and sentence to death?
4. Was the Appellant positively and properly identified by the prosecution witnesses, to wit, P.W. 2 in accordance with any form of identification known to the administration of justice?”

First Issue

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he stated at page 98 lines 28-31 of the record that-

“As a matter of fact the duty of an accused person is to give evidence that will destroy the prosecution’s evidence against him, or that will declare his innocence of the offence charged against him.”