Usuman Madu V. The State (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

The appellant was alleged to have killed one Janyo Kuti sometime in March, 1986. The Appellant was arraigned before the then Gongola State High Court of Justice sitting at Mubi, under section 221 of the Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty. Eight witnesses were called by the prosecution (Respondent). The Defence (Appellant) called one witness. Learned Counsel for the Defence addressed the Court. No reply was made by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge, after having considered the evidence called by the parties and the address by the Defence found that, the essential ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death have ‘been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution’ and found the accused (Appellant) guilty as charged. Learned trial Judge accordingly convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s verdict, the convict appealed to this Court. Briefs were filed and exchanged (Appellant’s and Respondent’s brief were both filed out of time by leave of this Court granted on various dates).

In his brief, learned Counsel for the Appellant, after having adopted same on the hearing date, formulated the following issues for our consideration:

“1. Whether the prosecution (Respondent) proved its case against the appellant (accused) beyond reasonable doubt before the Court convicted the Appellant (accused)?.

2. Was fair hearing accorded the Appellant at the trial?
3. Was the sentence of the trial Court that the Appellant be hanged to death valid in law in view of his age at the time of committing the offence?”

Learned Counsel for the respondent adopted and relied on the brief filed on behalf of the respondent. He formulated three issues as well:

“1. Whether the prosecutor (Respondent) proved its case against the Appellant (accused) beyond reasonable doubt before the Court convicted the Appellant (accused)?.

2. Was fair hearing accorded the Appellant at the trial? and
3. Was the sentence of the trial Court that the appellant be hanged to death valid in law in view of his age at the time of committing the offence?”

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution did not prove its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court convicted the Appellant. He cited section 138 of the Evidence Act and the Case of Alabi v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 307) 511 (1993) 9 SCNJ 109.

He argued further that, the prosecution relied upon a confessional statement said to be made to the police by the Appellant which the trial Court made a heavy weather out of in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. The Appellant, it was argued further vehemently denied the said confessional statement. The said confessional statement was in apparent contradiction with the testimony of PW1.

On issue No.2, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court did not afford the Appellant a fair hearing at the trial before conviction and sentencing to death of the Appellant. Learned Counsel argued that, it was wrong of the learned trial Judge to have himself translated Exhibit 2 from Hausa to English language without the knowledge and consent of the parties and by admitting same, suo motu, without the participation of the parties. It was further alleged that, the learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused to consider the defences put up by the appellant. All these the learned Counsel argued, infringed on the fundamental right of the appellant to fair hearing as entrenched in section 33(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (as amended) and the rules of natural justice of ‘audi alteram partem’ and ‘nemo judex in causa sua’. This infringement had vitiated the trial court’s proceedings. He cited the cases of Akinfe v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 58) 729; Christopher Otti v. I.G.P. (1956) NNLR 1; Njoku v. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 299) 272,(1993) 7 SCNJ 36 at 41.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued in his issue 3 that by March, 1986 when the offence was said to have been committed by the Appellant, the Appellant was less than 17 years. And that section 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code applicable to Adamawa State forbade death sentence on a convict who was less than 17 years of age. He cited Odidika v. The State (1977) 2 SC 21. Learned Counsel finally urged this court to allow the appeal.

In the brief filed by learned Counsel for the Respondent, all the issues raised by the Appellant and indeed the whole appeal were conceded by the Respondent. At the tail end of the brief learned Counsel for the Respondent stated:

“The three issues of argument raised by the Appellant have been and are all conceded with their supporting authorities by the respondent and admit of no argument…

We therefore, have no other thing than to urge your lordships to discharge and acquit the appellant accordingly as prayed by the appellant”.