The Best Identification of an Accused Person

The best identification of an accused is by the victim of the crime or a witness to the crime. In the instant case, the appellant has argued that the girl on the motorcycle with the appellant was a different girl from the victim, or was an unknown girl. But PW5 testified that he knew the victim and would recognize her anywhere. The close encounter with the appellant and the victim on the motorcycle identified the appellant at the scene of the crime and it is binding on the appellant. The appellant did not appeal against the description of the culprit as having a deformed right hand, and that identification and/or description of the appellant as the person who was seen with the victim on a motorcycle before she went missing is binding on the appellant. The appellant did not challenge the fact that he had a deformed right hand as at the date the victim was seen with him on a commercial motorcycle operated by the PW3 on the fateful day that she went missing. No doubt, the PW3, and the PW5 knew the appellant and the victim and had fixed the appellant at the scene of the crime as having committed the offence.

Proof of Offence of Kidnapping

Per UWA, J.S.C. at pages 237, paras. D-F:

“In respect of the elements required to be proved for the offence of kidnapping, there is no evidence that the victim has been seen till date. The parents of the victim, PW1 and PW2 gave evidence that the victim has not been seen from the date she was taken away by the appellant. The victim could not have consented to be taken away, she was only eight years of age at the time. From the investigation by the police, (the evidence of the PW4), the PW3, and PW5 amongst others; it was clear that the appellant kidnapped Mercy as held by the trial court and rightly affirmed by the lower court. There is no reason or talk of lawful purpose/excuse for the appellant to have taken away the victim/Mercy.”

Meaning and Nature of Contradictions in Evidence and Effect of Discrepancies or Contradictions on Prosecution’s Case

Contradictions occur when evidence adduced by different witnesses are opposites of the other. It is only discrepancies or contradictions on material points in the prosecution’s case that would create doubt which would favour an accused person/appellant. In the instant case, the learned counsel had erroneously argued that there were contradictions in the case of the prosecution at the trial because while the PW3 stated that the incident occurred at about 4.30pm on the fateful day, the PW5 testified that it was at about 5.00pm that the appellant picked up the victim. This was a minor detail that did not touch on the root of the matter, that is: that the appellant was seen with the victim to which the appellant confessed that he had kidnapped the victim. The exact time the witnesses saw the appellant with the victim is immaterial, whether it was 4.30pm or 5.00pm. On the other hand, if the witnesses had given the same time as the time the appellant was seen with the victim, the chances are high that the witnesses had been tutored to have ended up with identical evidence. Minor discrepancies as occurred in the present appeal could not be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The exact hour or minute the appellant was seen with the victim was immaterial.

When Identification Parade is Unnecessary

Where an accused person by his confessional statement has identified himself, there would not be any need for any further identification parade. In the instant case, the appellant by his admission in his confessional statement, had identified himself in respect of the commission of the offence. Further, the evidence of PW3 and PW5 fixed the appellant to the commission of the offence. Therefore, the Supreme Court would not fault the finding by the Court of Appeal that apart from the confessional statement of the appellant, the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly that of PW3 and PW5 fixed the appellant to the commission of the offence. Contrary to the appellant’s argument that there were no materials upon which the trial court could have convicted the appellant, there was ample evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses which was unchallenged and un-contradicted that established the charge against the appellant that he kidnapped the victim who had not been seen then.

The Essence of Particulars of Ground of Appeal

The essence of particulars to a ground of appeal is to explain or substantiate the ground or grounds of appeal. Grounds of appeal are to be differentiated from their particulars - while the grounds of appeals must clearly state what the appellant is complaining about, the essence of the particulars of a ground of appeal is to set out briefly the aspect of substantive law or procedural law that is affected by the error or misdirection identified or complained of in the ground of appeal. In the instant case, the particulars of ground 5 of the notice of appeal did not challenge the ruling of the trial court where it was held that the manner in which the statement was written did not involve violence as rightly argued by the respondent in its brief of argument. Ground 5 and its particulars related to the promise made to the appellant by the PW4, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) that he would help him get off the hook if he confessed to the crime which did not make the statement inadmissible. Therefore, the trial court rightly found that there was no violence in the manner in which the statement was taken from the appellant, and by virtue of the provisions of Sections 29 and 31 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), the promise did not make the statements inadmissible as also rightly argued by the respondent.

Treatment of Findings of Court not Appealed Against

A finding of fact not appealed against binds an appellant and the appellate court. In this case, the appellant did not appeal to the Court of Appeal against the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s confessional statements were voluntarily made. Thus, the appellant, not having appealed against the findings of facts by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal that the statements were voluntarily made, was bound by the findings.

The appellant did not appeal against the description of the culprit as having a deformed right hand. That identification and/or description of the appellant as the person seen with the victim on a motorcycle before she went missing is binding on the appellant. Also, the appellant did not challenge the fact that he had a deformed right hand as at the date the victim went missing and was seen with her on a commercial motorcycle operated by the PW3 on the fateful day that she went missing. Further, PW3 and PW5 knew the appellant and the victim, and had fixed the appellant at the scene of the crime as having committed the offence.

When Appellate Court Will not Interfere with Findings of Facts by Trial Court

Findings on primary facts are matters within the province of a trial court and there is a rebuttable presumption that a trial court’s findings and conclusions on facts are correct. Thus, such findings are accorded due respect at the appellate court. Therefore, an appellate court will very rarely, if at all, interfere with the findings of facts made by a trial court. This is so because such findings of fact enjoy the privilege of passing through the furnace of acrimonious cross-examination, the tooth-comb scrutiny of the observation of the witnesses’ reactions and assessment of the veracity of their testimony. Accordingly, such findings are to be accorded due respect in appellate courts, which did not have the advantage of the trial court. In the instant case, the trial court and the Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the PW3, the motorcycle rider, and of PW5 fixed the appellant as the person that kidnapped the victim. The trial court and the Court of Appeal believed the evidence of the witnesses at the trial court which had not been proved or shown to be perverse for the Supreme Court to set it aside.

Conclusion

The entrance of motorcycles into the public transport domain has become a menace but the masses of our people have no other option. In the absence of an efficient public transport system by way of buses and trains, people will have no other choice than to patronize the private unregistered transport providers, at times doing so at great danger to their lives and property. The two cases of Saheed v The People of Lagos and Dada v State which have been the subject of review these past weeks serve as a wake-up call on the government to take urgent steps to safeguard the people. There are so many other unreported cases similar to these ones, where innocent citizens become ready victims of ritualists, armed robbers and kidnappers who take advantage of the absence of government regulation to perpetrate their criminal agenda. Fuel subsidy removal has taken cab and hiring services out of the reach of even the middle class (if such still exists) not to talk of the poor of the poor. I appeal to the Governors of the various States to come up with laws that will protect their people and to enforce existing laws regulating the transport sector.