An Appraisal of Karimu Sunday v. The State

Karimu Sunday v. The state

Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 5th of May, 2017.

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division wherein the Court dismissed the appeal of the accused/appellant after his conviction and sentence by the High Court of Ogun State.
At the High Court of Ogun State, it was alleged that the appellant who was wearing a black cap, black goggles and a black handkerchief which covered his mouth, on 09/03/04, at about 5pm, went to a cement shop in Ijebu-Igbo, owned by one Ramotalai Alege (PW1), on a motorcycle. Upon arriving at the shop, the appellant alighted from the motorcycle and asked the rider, one Alaba Adesina, to wait for him. The appellant was alleged to have entered the shop on the pretext of purchasing 70 bags of cement from PW1. The appellant requested the cost of the bags of cement and as PW1 was about to take out a calculator from her bag, the appellant was alleged to have snatched her bag containing N3,600 and bolted out of the shop. The appellant then jumped onto a waiting motor cycle in a bid to escape with PW1 in pursuit. The appellant then threatened PW1 with a dagger which he pulled from his back pocket, but PW1 then began to shout for help, which attracted people to the scene. According to PW1, when people started coming to the scene, the person who was waiting with the motor cycle tried to move away with the appellant, but PW2 pulled down the motor cycle and the appellant jumped down and started running away. However, the appellant and the rider were eventually apprehended by concerned bystanders, including an off-duty policeman, who had been alerted by the alarm raised by PW1 and PW2. The rider was apprehended at the scene of the crime, while the appellant was arrested a short distance from the scene of the crime. Upon his arrest, the appellant was taken to the police station along with PW1 and PW2, and the rider of the motor cycle. At the station, the appellant made an extra judicial confessional statement.
At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellant testified in his own defence but called no other witnesses in support of his case. The appellant however made a bare denial of the charge and sought to retract his extra-judicial confessional statements on the ground that he did not write it. The appellant however, admitted to appending his signature to the confessional statements after they had been read to him by the Police.
The learned trial judge held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and sentence him to death by handing. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal seeking orders quashing his conviction and the sentence of death passed on him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed his conviction and the sentence of death passed on him by the trial Court under Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The appellant, aggrieved with this decision filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
The appellant distilled four issues for determination. The respondent distilled a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The Court noted that the single issue of the respondent clearly covers all aspects of questions that need be answered in the determination of the appeal and so the Court adopted the issues formulated by the respondent for the determination of the appeal.
SOLE ISSUE:
This raises the question whether the Court of Appeal or Court below rightly held that the prosecution proved the offence of armed robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit and it was thereby dismissed. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal in its affirmation of the judgment, conviction and sentence of the Accused/Appellant.

OPINION

There issues in the above case will be considered.
1. Was the sentence proportionate to the offence?
2. Did the Courts apply any rule of interpretation to Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms Act?
3. The appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal against Conviction. Why not the sentence?

The Robbery and Firearms Act clearly specifies the penalty for armed robbery as death by hanging. However, the accused only brought a dagger. The Courts could have realised that no one was stabbed. He only threatened with a dagger and the full wrath of the law is on him. Nothing got spoilt and destroyed then life must go on. The writer opines that he could have gotten a lesser sentence.

On the rule of interpretation the Courts employed, it seems the literal rule. Juris novit curia- it is for the Courts to know the law. Apparently, the penalty for Armed Robbery is death but liniency is in the sceptre of the Courts. Flexibility and reformative justice must be behind every the dispensation of criminal justice. We must have in mind that other things would influence the decision of the Courts.

On the appeal against Conviction, it could have been better if the appeal was against the sentence. The confessional statement of the accused and other evidences pinpoint the fact that he was indeed guilty. Thus, an appeal should have been for mitigation of sentence.