A judge has no jurisdiction to listen to allocutus and no discretion to reduce death sentence to a term of years once the accused person has been found guilty under section 221 of the Penal Code. The sentence of 14 years imprisonment after finding the accused/respondent guilty of culpable homicide contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code was wrong, it is a material irregularity in the proceedings of the trial court and this court could remedy it so that substantial justice might be done. The correct judgment of the trial court is that the respondent is/was sentenced to death.
It is elementary law that the sentence to be imposed upon conviction for an offence is at the discretion of the trial Court. Every trial Judge is endowed with the discretion to impose punishment provided by law on a convict. The discretion must however be exercised judiciously and judicially. See OKECHUKWU V. STATE [1993] 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 78 at 94-95; EROMOSELE V. FRN (2018) LPELR-43851 (SC). Therefore, in order to demonstrate that the discretion was judicially and judiciously exercised, a trial Judge must state the factors that influenced his decision in imposing sentence. See IORTIM V.
THE STATE [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt. 490) 771 TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C
It is beyond doubt that the menace of corruption and its associated vices including misuse of public office and mismanagement of public funds remains a major scourge ravaging this country. There must be concerted efforts especially on the part of the Courts to send the right signals to managers of public funds that it is no longer possible and tolerable to squander public funds and continue basking in affluence, such conduct must be made unattractive, shameful and condemnable our Courts must ensure that the spirit and letter of extant laws are implemented.
As the lower Court rightly noted, in sentencing a convict in respect of a crime that has gained notoriety and is prevalent in the community, it is incumbent on the Court to impose a severe sentence in order to deter the convict and the general community from further committing the crime. It is worth stating that the values of the elite constitute the dominant value that drives the wider values of the society. Where the elites, who are found wanting, are made to face the wrath of the law, so doing will serve as deterrent to others.
The Appellant in this appeal abused public office and public trust, he became an attractive and admirable public figure in the society commanding undeserved respect and influence because he mismanaged public funds, the conduct of the Appellant and people in his position, gang and enterprise send wrong signal to the society that corruption is a way of life and pays, we have a duty as a Court to stop this negative trend and drift, public office must be shown to be public trust, public office holders must be made to understand that they must give account of their service, holding public office is more of a burden than an instrument of oppression, regression and arrogant display of affluence.
Public officers must not be allowed to have sound sleep after squandering public funds, abuse of power, trust and responsibility must attract serious condemnation, and penalty, public officers engaged in mismanaging public affairs must be ostracized and made to cough out all proceeds of crime acquired as a result of abuse of public trust . TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C