Extortion

md←→ previous / next

AHMED v. KANO STATE

citation: LGC-0914 (17/01/2017)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 17th day of January, 2017

CA/K/425/C/2012

Before Their Lordships

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

THE 5TH HEAD OF CHARGE That you Paul Chukwudebelu, Nura Shaaibu Adamu, Mohammed Ahmed and others now at large, between the 11th day of July, 2010 and 12th day of July, 2010 at Yamadawa quarters, Kano Judicial Division committed the offence of extortion by doing an act to wit: you intentionally put one Alhaji Salisu Sa’idu Maikanti in fear of death and dishonestly induced him to order his son to deliver to you the sum of two hundred and twenty nine thousand, United State of America Dollars (equivalent to thirty five million Naira) and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 294 of the Penal Code Cap. 37 of the laws of Kano State. In a detailed judgment of 83 pages, in which the learned trial judge considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence, the extra-judicial statement of the Appellant and other …………………….B……………………. documents tendered before him, the learned trial judge found that the case against the Appellant and the others charged with him, were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge therefore sentenced the Appellant and the two others to death for the offence of conspiracy; death for the offence of robbery, 15 years imprisonment for the offence of abduction; 3 years imprisonment for the offence of wrongful confinement; and 14 years imprisonment for the offence of extortion. In addition, the lower Court ordered the forfeiture of the assets both moveable and immoveable, of the Appellant and the two others, to the government of Kano State. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, which judgment was delivered on the 6th of April, 2016, the Appellant on the 27th of June, 2016, filed a Notice of Appeal on the following five grounds. GROUND ONE The learned trial judge erred in law when he found in the portion of the judgment thus: “From the statement of the 3rd accused to the Police, which was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit J1, and with no objection from Counsel to the accused, and the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 before this Court. It is very clear that there was a nexus between the meetings which the 2nd and 3rd accused had with one Obinna, a.k.a. Barrister mentioned by the 3rd accused, and who is not before this Court, and the role played by the 1st accused on 11/7/2010, and the house at Yamadawa, rented out to the 2nd accused by PW4 the land lady. In the circumstances of this case therefore, it can safely be inferred that there was a conspiracy to kidnap PW1, the Complainant in this case, which involved the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused persons amongst other “ and thereby came to a wrong conclusion which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. GROUND TWO The trial Court erred in law when it held in a portion of the judgment thus: “Retracting Exhibit J1 by the accused in his oral testimony to my mind did not adversely affect the position that the 3rd accused played an active role in the conspiracy that resulted in the abduction of the nominal complainant in this case, and therefore cannot exonerate himself from the Armed Robbery committed by the gang, of which he was an active orchestrated (sic). I therefore accept the contents of Exhibit J1, as the true position of things. The oral testimony of DW3, who is the 3rd accused person is an afterthought, and an attempt to resile from the truth, I therefore hold that the prosecution has established the case of Armed Robbery against the 3rd accused” and thereby came to a wrong conclusion which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. GROUND THREE The trial Court erred in law in holding that the Appellant is guilty of the offence of abduction of the complainant – Alhaji Salisu Maikanti by relying on the content of Exhibit J1 being the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant. GROUND FOUR The trial Court erred in law in holding that the prosecution had proved the offence of wrongful confinement committed against the complainant by the Appellant and the other 2 accused persons. GROUND FIVE The trial Court erred in law in finding the Appellant guilty of the offence of extortion against the complainant – Alhaji Salisu Maikanti by reliance on the contents of Exhibit J1. …………………….C……………………. In the Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by O.I. Habeeb Esq. and filed on 7/9/16 a single issue for determination was distilled from the five grounds of appeal. That issue is:- “Whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence led and the contents of the retracted extra judicial statement said to have been made by the Appellant, the trial High Court was justified in convicting the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy, armed robbery, abduction, wrongful restraint and extortion.” The Respondent in its Brief of Argument settled by Nura Muhammed Fagge Esq. and filed on 20/10/16, adopted the single issue formulated by the Appellant. Arguing the issue, O.I. Habeeb of Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are stated in the case of KAZA V. STATE (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 108) p. 125 at 176. Learned Counsel submitted that none of the witnesses of the prosecution including the victim of the crime, PW1, made reference to the Appellant as being involved in the commission of the crime. It was submitted that the reference by the learned trial judge to the evidence of PW1 and PW4 in order to infer the commission of the offence of conspiracy by the Appellant has no basis in law. It was argued that there is no legal basis for the finding of guilt of the Appellant by the lower Court. Learned Counsel submitted that for conspiracy to be proved, there must be evidence either direct or indirect showing an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by an unlawful means. Conspiracy, learned Counsel argued, is not committed by the mere intention of the parties. The cases of SHURUMO V. STATE (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1226) p.73 at 104; YAKUBU V. FRN (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt.1160) p. 151 at p.174 and YAKUBU V. STATE (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 408) p. 111 at p. 137 were cited in support. It was contended that there was a total absence of either direct or circumstantial evidence arising from the evidence of PW1 and PW4, that links the Appellant to the offence of conspiracy. Appellant

Continue reading Extortion

You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.

All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
916 full judgments and 269 case collections
8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs

Unlock the library I have an access code

Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.