n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

SADIKU VS. THE STATE (2013) CLR 5(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 17th 2013

Brief

  • Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act
  • Identification parade
  • Powers of the AGF and State Attorney General regards Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act
  • Section 9(2) of the Robbery & Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990
  • Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State
  • Section 167(a) of the Evidence Act – Nature of
  • Section 5(b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act 1990
  • Section 1(2)(a) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act 1990
  • Section 1(1) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act 1990
  • Section 9(3) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act 1990
  • Section 12(5) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act 1990
  • Section 315(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 191 of the 1979 Constitution
  • Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 274(4)(b) of the 1979 Constitution
  • Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended)
  • Section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended)

Facts

The Appellant was accused of being among the group of armed robbers who carried out operation and conspired and robbed several victims of their money and valuable properties on 15th February 1999. The Appellant and two others were charged under Section 5(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990 and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The evidence shows that the Appellant and others were armed with guns and a knife at the time of the robbery. The prosecution called witnesses most of whom were the victims of the robbery. The Appellant and his co-accused person testified in their defence but called no evidence. The Appellant and his co-accused persons were not only identified as participants in the robbery but also that some of the properties stolen in the act of the robbery, were immediately recovered from the Appellant and his co-accused persons. The Appellant and one of his co-accused person were found guilty as charged and were sentenced to death in accordance with the law while the 3rd accused was found not guilty and was discharged and acquitted. That was the judgment of the trial Court on 16th August 2004.

On appeal, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery Act was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 1(1) of the Act for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment in place of death sentence. The Appellant is now on a further appeal to Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the trial, court has jurisdiction to try the appellant on an...

Read More