Before Their Lordships
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
MUKAILA SALAWU –Appellant
AND
…………………….A…………………….
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): The appellant who was the 3rd accused was arraigned with three others before the Oyo State High Court, Ogbomoso Judicial Division in Charge No.HOG/3C/2004 for the offences of conspiracy to commit felony and murder of one Raji Tiamiyu, a traffic warden contrary to sections 324 and 319 of the Criminal Code Cap.30 Vol.II Laws of Oyo State 1978 (now Cap.38 Vol. II Laws of Oyo State 2000) respectively. They all pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in proof of its case called seven (7) witnesses and tendered exhibits which were marked Exhibits 1 – 158 while each of the four accused persons testified in his defence but called no other witness. At the end of the trial, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused were found guilty of the offences charged. Each of them was given 10 years imprisonment with hard labour on the count of conspiracy to murder and the three of them were sentenced to death for murder. The 4th accused was discharged and acquitted. They appealed by filing separate notices of appeal. On 24th May, 2012, the Court of Appeal, Ibadan dismissed their appeal in appeal No.CA/I/192/2007. The appellant has further appealed against that judgment to this Court. The Notice of Appeal dated 4th June, 2012 contained six grounds of appeal from which the following five issues were formulated:-
(a) Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court on the count of conspiracy, they stated that the appellant did not call the Okada men who took him and his co-accused to the scene to confirm the circumstances under which they went to the scene and oath administered on them? (Ground One).
(b) Whether Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the appellant with his co-conspirators acted under circumstances through which it can undoubtedly be inferred that they conspired with one another to assassinate the late Raji Tiamiyu (Ground Two)
(c) whether court of Appeal was right when it held that conduct of the appellant clearly implicated him and for not offering acceptable explanation as to why he was at the scene of crime (Ground Three)
(d) whether circumstantial evidence against the appellant was cogent and compelling to warrant court of Appeal’s conviction and sentence by the trial court (Ground Four).
(e) was the court of Appeal right that prosecution proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt? (Ground Five).
