How to Prove Unlawful Possession of Indian Hemp

CASE TITLE: DANLADI v. FRN (2023) LPELR-61099 (CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH JUNE, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on unlawful possession of narcotics.

FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Bauchi Holden at Bauchi State, delivered on November 12, 2021, in Charge No. FHC/BAU/CR/11/2016 by Honourable Justice M. Shittu Abubakar.

The brief facts of the case are that the Defendant/Appellant was allegedly found in possession of 4.350 kilograms of cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to cocaine, heroin, and LSD.

The Defendant/Appellant was then arraigned and charged with possession and dealing in 4.350 kilograms of cannabis sativa, a.k.a., marijuana, contrary to and punishable under Section 19 of the NDLEA Act, Cap N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 11C of the same Act.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The prosecution, in proof of its case, called seven (7) witnesses and tendered exhibits. The Defendant/Appellant testified in his defence and called no witness to testify on his behalf.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Defendant/Appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1. “Whether the Respondent has established the offences of being in possession and dealing in Indian hemp against the Appellant with credible, reliable evidence to justify the conviction of the Appellant by the trial court?”
2. “Whether the Appellant has the right to own and keep money in his own matrimonial room under Nigerian Law?”

DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal succeeded in part, but only to the extent that the prosecution/Respondent failed to establish that the sum of N109,000 found in the Appellant’s house was a crime. However, the appeal was dismissed substantially. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed with regard to possession and dealing in cannabis sativa.

RATIOS:
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC DRUG: Ingredients the prosecution must prove to succeed in a charge of unlawful possession of Indian hemp
• EVIDENCE- CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether retraction from a confessional/extra-judicial statement will render the statement inadmissible in evidence; tests to be applied in deciding what weight could be attached to same
• EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: Instance where it can be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Effect of the failure of a party to object to the reception of a document in evidence when it is being tendered
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Instance where the need to call the maker of a document to give evidence on same will be dispensed with
• EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: Instance(s) where it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SPECULATION: Whether Courts or parties can act on speculations

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol