Judgment
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) : This Appeal No. SC.128/2019 was commenced on 29-1-2019 when the appellant filed a notice of appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/13CR/2018, against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 7-12-2018 upholding the judgment of the High Court of Bayelsa State at Yenagoa delivered on 22-6-2017 in charge no.
YHC/173C/2016, finding that the appellant and his co-accused are not guilty of the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery for which they were charged and tried and rather finding them guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit robbery and the offence of robbery.
Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – appellant’s brief, respondent’s brief and appellant’s reply brief.
The appellants’ brief raised the following issues for determination – 1. Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed that the trial Court can convict the appellant of a lesser offence of robbery when there is no provision under the Robbery and Firearm (Special provisions) Act, Cap. R11, LFN 2004 to do so? Distilled from ground one of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal. 2. Whether the conviction of the appellant on the basis of Exhibit A and B is not perverse? Distilled from ground two of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal. 3.
Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the conviction of the appellant in the circumstances of this case? Distilled from ground three, four and five of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal
The respondent’s brief also raised three issues for determination as follows:- 1. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the lesser offences conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, LFN, 2004 by the trial Court as against the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery which the appellant was charged. 2.
Whether the lower Court rightly affirmed the reliance of the Court on the extra-judicial statement of the appellant (Exhibit B) which was admitted without objection. 3. Whether the lower Court was not right when it held that there were no material contradictions in the case of the respondent/prosecution which could have been resolved in favour of the appellant and fatal to the case of the respondent/prosecution.
