Armed robbery: S/Court quashes conviction, sentence

In the first case, the appellant, Happy Kingsley Idemudia, had pleaded not guilty before the trial court, but he was convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for conspiracy and attempted armed robbery. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Benin division of the Court of Appeal. He approached the apex court where his appeal was allowed.The […]

In the first case, the appellant, Happy Kingsley Idemudia, had pleaded not guilty before the trial court, but he was convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for conspiracy and attempted armed robbery. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Benin division of the Court of Appeal. He approached the apex court where his appeal was allowed.
The prosecution had alleged that on February 21, 2006, the accused person, in the company of two others, now on the run, at Sanubi in Isokolo Judicial Division, attempted to rob one Samuel Odorume of his money while armed with a gun.
In the leading judgement delivered by Justice Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, the apex court held that there was no effort made by the police to investigate the defence of alibi raised by the appellant, that he was not at the scene of crime. The court held further that the robbery incident, for which the appellant was tried and convicted, was not reported to the police until over a year after the incident.
James Gwangwan was equally sentenced to 14 years imprisonment on a charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery by the High Court of Kwara State. But this was set aside by the Court of Appeal, Ilorin before the state appealed to the apex court.
His trouble started when the police nabbed one Joshua John with a cartridge, following which he (Joshua) confessed that he belonged to a six-man gang of armed robbers, whose names he mentioned, including that of James. All the suspected members of the six-man gang were nabbed, except one. They all confessed to participating in robbery activities in Offa and its environs.
During trial, James objected to the admissibility of his statements on the ground of involuntariness, which led the trial court to order a trial-within-trial to determine its admissibility. However, midway into the trial-within-trial, it was aborted by the trial judge, who held that his evidence amounted to a retraction rather than a challenge to its voluntariness.
Justice John Inyang Okoro, in his leading judgement, held that the trial-within-trial was in order, but when it was called off midway and admitted as evidence, it rendered the alleged confessional statement irregular, inadmissible and unreliable.