Willie Yada V. The State (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. B. A. COKER, J.S.C.

The appellant was tried on an Information which charged him with the murder on the 29th December, 1970, of one Dennis Okeneme at Edemenenyi village in Ahoada Division of the Rivers State. He was convicted by Douglas, J. (High Court, Port Harcourt, Rivers State) and sentenced to death. He had appealed to this court and when, on the 5th October, 1972, his appeal was dismissed by this court, we stated that we would give our reasons later for doing so.

At the trial of the appellant, eight witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. The facts were simple and according to Reuben Okeneme, 1st P.W. and son of Dennis Okeneme (later deceased), he was an eye-witness to the killing of his father. He was pounding palm fruits in company of his father in a bush a few yards away from their home. As they were doing this, the appellant suddenly emerged from behind them holding a matchet in his hand and later dealt a severe blow on Dennis Okeneme on the neck. The appellant then escaped.

Dennis Okeneme fell down immediately he was struck with the matchet and died there on the spot. The witness, Reuben Okeneme, on seeing the appellant strike his father, raised an alarm and shouted to the neighbours – “Willie has killed my father, Willie has killed my father!”

Some of the neighbours were attracted to the scene and one of them who gave evidence at the trial of the appellant was Roman Frank. He stated that he was attracted to the scene by the alarm raised and the words uttered by Reuben; that when he got there he saw the body of Dennis lying dead on the ground inside a pool of blood and indeed that he saw the appellant running away from the scene “with a matchet in his hand.” The doctor who performed an autopsy on the corpse of Dennis, stated thus with respect to his findings:-

“There was a deep, gaping, clean-cut wound about four inches wide and three inches deep on the right side of the neck. The external carotid artery, the external and internal jugular veins on the right side of the neck were all severed. The muscles of the neck on the right side were all severed down to the bone. There was a superficial laceration of about two inches wide and a quarter of an inch deep on the right side of the chin. In my opinion, death was due to haemorrhage resulting from the wound on the right side of the neck. The wound could have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument such as a matchet.”

There were other witnesses who gave evidence of the crime. Rose Aaron, a housewife, who lived in the same house (but different apartments) with the appellant testified to seeing him on the day in question return to the house holding a bloodstained matchet. According to the witness, Police Constable David George, a policeman, had recovered the matchet, still blood-stained, from the apartment of the appellant. The appellant, who had earlier decamped, was later arrested and after he had been charged with the murder of Dennis Okeneme, he made a confessional Statement to Police Constable Fyneface Okpara and later confirmed the voluntariness and accuracy of that statement to Assistant Superintendent of Police Benjamin Olowo (P.W.7). The statement was produced in evidence at the trial of the appellant and admitted as Exhibit 2. In that statement, the appellant stated that he had killed Dennis Okeneme because he had bewitched him and in consequence of this, all his affairs had been disturbed and his hopes frustrated.

At his trial, the appellant gave evidence in his defence. He tried to withdraw from the statement Exhibit 2 and indeed told the court that he made no statement whatsoever to the Police. He stated that on the day in question he was, as it was usual with him, setting traps for wild animals in his farm when four persons came to him, arrested him and eventually took him away to the Police Station at Ahoada.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge did not accept the evidence given by the appellant at the trial, he preferred, and not without justification, the statement, Exhibit 2, which the appellant had made and confirmed before the 7th P.W. The learned trial Judge stated in the course of his judgment as follows:-

“The evidence against the accused is overwhelming. The 1st P.W. saw the accused when he was approaching them at the “pounding-pit” with matchet in hand. He said the accused walked towards them slowly. He had no reason to suspect the accused since he knew of no dispute between the deceased and the accused.  After killing the deceased, the accused chased him with the matchet but soon stopped and began to run away.’

With respect to the confessional statement, the learned trial Judge concluded that it was made by the appellant voluntarily and that his denial of the statement in court was no more than a mere “play act.”  He then convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to death.

We stated before that the appellant had appealed to this court on that decision. Learned counsel assigned to argue the appeal was unable to find anything which could be usefully argued in favour of the appellant. We were ourselves convinced, like the learned trial Judge, who tried the appellant, that the confessional statement, Exhibit 2, was the voluntary expression of the appellant at a time when the events therein described were  freshest in his memory.

With respect to his testimony in court, the learned trial Judge rejected it and did not accept the denials of the appellant of the facts adduced in evidence by the prosecution witnesses. We thought ourselves that the learned trial Judge was entitled to do this and indeed the facts and circumstances of the case justified those conclusions.

There are many other points in the stories of the witnesses which lent support to the confessional statement and point clearly to the complicity of the appellant. We thought that the statement Exhibit 2 contained the truth about the killing of Dennis Okeneme. In this case, the murder of Dennis was deliberately executed and the pre-conceived reasons for doing it are manifest on the record. We therefore dismissed the appeal at the hearing.

SC.37/1972