Judgment
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant was arraigned and convicted of Criminal Force and Assault contrary to Section 267 of the Penal Code Law and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with a fine of N 10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira), by a Senior Magistrate Court of the FCT, His Worship Hauwa Aliyu Shehu, on the 2nd of November, 2011. At the trial before the Senior Magistrate, the Prosecution called three witnesses and tendered two exhibits and closed its case, while the appellant called two witnesses in his defence.
At the close of the case, the learned trial Senior Magistrate found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months in prison with a fine of N10,000.00. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant appealed against that decision to the High Court of FCT Appellate Division. The appeal was heard and in a considered judgment delivered on the 28th of November, 2013, the FCT High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant of the Offence of Criminal Force and Assault to deter a Public Servant from the performance of his duty contrary to Section 267 of the Penal Code Law.
The FCT High Court however reduced the sentence from six months’ imprisonment with N10,000.00 fine to a fine of N20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira). Dissatisfied with the judgment of FCT High Court, Appellate Division, presided over by U.A. Ogakwu J., (as he then was and A.I. Kutigi, delivered on the 28th of November, 2013, the appellant has appealed to this Court on four grounds of appeal filed on the 21st of January, 2021. Learned counsel for the appellant Tsafa Barnabas Esq., distilled four issues for determination as follows: “1.
Whether the trial Magistrate’s holding that the matter was not heard in Chambers but only the FIR was mentioned in chamber was not unconstitutional. 2. Whether the learned Justices of the High Court were right when they held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 3.
Whether the learned Justices of the High Court were right when they held that the extra-judicial statement of the appellant was not a confessional statement but refused to acquit and discharge the appellant when his conviction was based solely on the extra-judicial statement as it was held to be a confessional statement.
