Umaru Sani V. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

The Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court of Kaduna State for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death. He allegedly forced his way into his former wife’s room at midnight of 12/81/2002, where he met her with one Ibrahim Yusuf and in a fit of rage, Appellant stabbed ” Ibrahim Yusuf, (deceased) “with a sharp knife on his neck causing his instant death”.

The Prosecution called four witnesses, including the Appellant’s former wife, Amina Shuaibu, as PW4, and it tendered four Exhibits, including two confessional statements he had made to the police.

At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the defence counsel made a no-case submission that was overruled by the trial Court on 7/12/2007, and the Appellant was “called upon to enter his defence”.

On that same 7/12/2007, the trial Court granted the defence counsel’s application to recall PW2, Cpl. Joseph Abu, and PW3, Idris Shuaibu, who is the PW4’s brother, for “further cross-examination”. The matter was adjourned three times because the witnesses were not in court when

1

they turned up, defence counsel was not in Court, and the learned trial Judge, Kurada, J., ordered as follows-

Defence counsel applied to recall the PW2 and PW3, for further cross-examination and this Application was granted on 7/12/07. However, since then, the two witnesses have not been further cross-examined because the Prosecution had been unable to trace them. Today, the witnesses are in Court but for no reason, the defence counsel is not in Court, I take it, therefore, that he no longer intends to ask further questions. The witnesses are accordingly discharged. The case is adjourned to 3/11/08 for defence. The defence counsel shall be served.

On 3/11/08, the Appellant testified as the DW1, and closed his case, and Kurada, J., in his Judgment delivered on 24/2/2009, held that the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He found the Appellant guilty and convicted and then sentenced him to death.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and one of his complaints was that he was not accorded a fair trial at the trial Court in that when his counsel “was absent without excuse” the trial Court “did not ask [him] either to

2

employ another counsel or to personally cross-examine PW1 and PW2 before [it] discharged the witnesses”; and he was not given opportunity to present his case through them.

In its Judgment delivered on 19/2/2013, the Court of Appeal set out the different adjournments at the trial Court, and stated as follows-

When the case ultimately came up on 3/10/2008, learned counsel to the Appellant was not in Court and the Court adjourned the case to 3/11/2008. On the said 3/11/2008 when the case come up, learned counsel to the Appellant opened his defence. What the learned counsel – – ought to have done if he was still desirous of further cross-examining PW2 and PW3 was to tender his apology and reasons as to why he was absent at the last adjourned (sic) and then – – apply to the lower Court to recall PW2 and PW3 for the purpose of further cross-examining them. Surprisingly, on 3/11/2008, the then learned counsel to the Appellant failed to take the appropriate step but rather proceeded to open Appellant’s defence. Being the architect of his own misfortune, Appellant cannot now bamboozle this Court with his untenable contention that his Fundamental Right had