Whether a Person Can Be Convicted for the Offence of Conspiracy When the Co-Conspirator Is at Large

CASE TITLE: ADAMU v. KANO STATE (2022) LPELR-58623(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 3rd May 2018.

The facts of this case, as presented by the Respondent before the trial judge, are that at about 10.00 pm on the 8th day of May 2015, P.W 1, 2 and 3 and one Abdullahi Abubakar, now deceased, all of Basama Village in Wudil Local Government Area of Kano State were seated at a borehole in their village when the Appellant, his co-accused at the trial, Abdullahi Yalwa, and one Basoso Guda who is still at large, all also of the same Basama village, came and fetched water from the said borehole. After fetching the water, the Appellant’s group, as it was alleged were cautioned by the deceased and his group for screaming/shouting – an act said to have been prohibited by their Ward Head. An altercation then ensued between the two groups following which Appellant and his group left only to return shortly. Upon their return, the second accused, Abdullahi Yalwa, fought with P.W.1 (Bala Haliru) while Appellant and Basoso fought the deceased, in the course of which one of the latter two stabbed the deceased with a knife on his ear and upper chest which led to his death, a fact certified by a medical doctor.

Appellant and his co-accused in their testimonies as D.W.1 and 2 denied committing the offences. In fact, the Appellant in his defence, as against his admission in his statement to the Police that he was involved in the fight, raised an alibi that he was at his working place at the time of the offence; that he was simply passing by when the Police arrested him after accusing him of conspiring with others to kill the deceased.

At the end of the trial, the trial judge discharged and acquitted the Appellant’s co-accused who from the evidence of the Respondent only fought with P.W.1 and was not involved in the fight with the deceased. As regards Appellant, however, he had no difficulty convicting him of the two offences of culpable homicide punishable with the death of the deceased Abdullahi Abubakar and of conspiring with Basoso, still at large, to commit the same offence. In respect of the substantive offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, the Court held the Appellant culpable on the doctrine of common intention after rejecting his defence of alibi. Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“1. Whether from the surrounding circumstances of the case the learned trial judge was right in convicting and sentencing him to death.

2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in convicting him for the offence of conspiracy.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the Appellant were affirmed.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CHARGE(S): Whether the fact that an accused person is charged under a wrong section or law will lead to his acquittal
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Whether agreement to carry out an unlawful act is the major ingredient of the offence of conspiracy
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Position of the law where conspiracy exists between an accused and persons unknown/persons at large
• EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE: Whether the confessional statement of an accused person admitting the commission of a crime will make identification evidence unnecessary