INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ibrahim Abdullahi v State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1869) 407 provides clarity on two critical aspects of Nigerian criminal law: the weight to be given to confessional statements in capital offences, and the legal safeguards against double jeopardy in cases where a single set of facts supports multiple charges. This judgment serves as a key authority on proving armed robbery and navigating issues of voluntariness in criminal confessions.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appellant, Ibrahim Abdullahi, along with about 13 others, attacked and fatally injured Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar, resulting in his death during a violent robbery in Tukanawa Quarters, Katsina State. Two eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW5) testified that they saw the Appellant at the scene, and physical evidence (a stick, sandals, and a pair of eyeglasses) was recovered. The Appellant wrote two confessional statements.
He was subsequently charged before the High Court of Katsina State on two counts of armed robbery under Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2004, and culpable homicide under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and testified in his defence without calling any witnesses.
The trial court found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery and sentenced him to death. The offence of culpable homicide was struck out to avoid double jeopardy. His appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were both dismissed.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
In determining the facts of the case, the Supreme Court distilled a sole issue for determination:
Whether the lower court was right to dismiss the appeal based on its findings, where it held that the statement of the appellant is voluntary, positive, and properly proved, and the offence of armed Robbery against the appellant is proved without reasonable doubt.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no merit found in the appeal because all the ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery were proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower Courts.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
The Supreme Court in the case of Okanlawon v State (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1489) 445 at 472, paras A-B, defined armed robbery as “robbery committed by a person carrying a dangerous weapon regardless of whether the weapon is revealed or used.” In providing the ingredients of the criminal offence of Armed Robbery, Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2004 provides:
(2) If-
- any offender mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed;
or
- at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, he offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.
The punishment for armed robbery upon conviction under this section is death. To secure a conviction, the Supreme Court in Taiye v State (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1647) 115 at 131 – 132, paras H-A, held that the prosecution must prove:
- That there was a robbery.
- That at the time of the robbery the accused or any of the accused person was armed with arms or offensive weapon.
- That the accused facing the trial was the robber or one of the armed robbers.
See Diwa v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Bozin v. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465; Olayinka v. The State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561.
These ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is defined in the case of Ofordike v State (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 395 at 413, paras E-G, as “establishing the guilt of an accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence.” The court, in further defining the principle, held that:
In Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, it was held that, “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man as to leave only a remote probability in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence, “of course it is possible”, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It should be noted that in proving the offence of armed robbery (as well as other criminal offences), the prosecution can rely on:
a. Voluntary confessional statement of the accused,
b. Witness testimony, or
c. Circumstantial evidence
THE ROLE OF WEAPONS IN ESCALATING THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
The presence of a weapon during a robbery significantly increases the severity of the offence. Research[1] indicates that offenders who use weapons are not only more likely to inflict harm but also tend to have more extensive and violent criminal records. The weapon may influence the offender’s decisions before, during, and after the offence, thereby impacting victim selection, crime tactics, and escalation of violence.
This distinction justifies the harsher sentence for armed robbery (death) compared to simple robbery (minimum of 21 years’ imprisonment), under Nigerian law. The Supreme Court in Ogwuche v FRN & Ors (2020) LPELR-52523(SC) 22, heldthat it is the punishment for an offence and not the law pursuant to which a charge is brought, that determines whether an offence is capital in nature.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS IN NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW
Confessions are among the most potent forms of evidence in criminal trials. When voluntary, clear, precise, unequivocal, direct, positive, and relating to the accused person’s acts, knowledge or intention, a confession alone can sustain a conviction. See Okanlawon v State (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1489) 445 at 478 paras B-C, State v Ajayi (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 505) 382 at 395 paras B-C, and Ofordike v State (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 395 at 415 paras G-H.
When the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in contention, the court must conduct a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of the statement. In Ofordike v State (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 395 at 416 – 417, paras H-B, the court held,
Where an accused person admits making the statement but contends or asserts that he did not make it voluntarily, but under duress or some other alleged influence, then a trial within trial will be conducted. Where however as in this case, the objection to the admissibility in accused confessional statement is based on the grounds that it was not read over to him and that he did not make it, the statement is treated as a voluntary statement and is admissible without the court holding a trial within trial which is necessary only where the issue of involuntariness is raised.
In Taiye v State (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1647) 115 at 131, paras D-F, the Supreme Court outlined six tests to guide assessment before relying solely on a confessional statement in obtaining a conviction:
- Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
- Is it corroborated?
- Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as they can be tested?
- Was the prisoner one who had the opportunity of committing the offence(s)?
- Is the confession possible? and
- Is it consistent with the other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?
In its decision in Taiye v State (supra) at 131, paras B-C, the Supreme Court goes on to emphasise the desirability of supporting confessional statements with some independent evidence, “no matter how slight,” to lend further credibility to the statement. This reflects a cautious approach aimed at ensuring the reliability of confessional statements.
REFLECTIONS ON ABDULLAHI V STATE (2023)
1. Confessional Statement as Key Evidence
The judgment reaffirms that a valid confessional statement alone can form the basis for a conviction, especially when corroborated by eyewitness testimony or physical evidence.
2. Safeguards Against Double Jeopardy
By striking out the culpable homicide charge, the court reinforced the principle against double jeopardy, which states that a person should not be punished twice on the same facts and for the same offence. See PML (Nig.) Ltd v F.R.N. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 448.
3. Defence Strategy
The Appellants’ choice not to call any witnesses left the prosecution’s case largely unrebutted. When the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in question, a mere denial is insufficient. Defence Counsel ought to actively challenge the admissibility of the statement at an early stage, which will in turn prompt the court to conduct a trial-within-trial.
4. Ethical and Human Rights Considerations
The reliance on confessional statements in capital offences raises significant human rights questions, especially in contexts where interrogation methods may be coercive. The morality of imposing the death penalty for crimes like armed robbery continues to be a point of debate, particularly given global shifts towards the abolition of the death penalty.
CONCLUSION
Abdullahi v State (2023) reinforces the trite law that voluntary confessions, when properly obtained and corroborated, remain critical in securing convictions for criminal offences. The judgment also serves as a reminder of the elements to be proved in cases of armed robbery, the importance of procedural fairness, and the need for ongoing legal and ethical reflection on the use of the death penalty in Nigeria. This Supreme Court’s decision also offers valuable lessons on the offence of armed robbery, defence strategy, and the interpretation of criminal law provisions.
[1] Iain R. Brennan, “High Stakes: Offender Decisions About Weapon Carrying and Weapon Use” Chapter for Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision-Making