SUNDAY IYARO
v.
THE STATE
1988-LD-SC-501
Supreme Court
12th February, 1988.
Justices:
Augustine Nnamani, J.S.C
Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, J.S.C
Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, J.S.C
Ebenezer Babasanya Craig, J.S.C
Abubakar Bashir Wali, J.S.C (Read The Leading Judgement)
Subject Matter(s):
Criminal Law and Procedure
Final Orders:
Appeal Dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
SECTION 7 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE LAW OF LAGOS STATE – Interpretation of Section 7 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos as it relates to the issue of a person committing an offence
“Section 7 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State provides that: “7. When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say: (a) Every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; (b) Every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; (c) Every person who aids another person in committing the offence; (d) Any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence. In the fourth case he may be charged either with himself committing the offence or with counseling or procuring its commission. A conviction of counseling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence. Any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such a nature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, the act or omission would have constituted an offence on his part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind, and is liable to the same punishment, as if he had himself done the act or made the omission; and he may be charged with himself doing the act or making the omission.” For a person to be convicted as a principal offender under this section, the offence must be proved to have been committed, but it is not a condition precedent to such conviction that the person or persons who actually did the act are convicted. The offence is the doing or omitting to do something for the purpose of making it easier or possible to commit the substantive offence by another person. The section envisages the complicity of a person not actually committing the substantive offence himself, but his action, by commission or omission facilitate its commission – See State v. Ededey (1972) 1 SC. 140.”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – Conditions that must be met before a conviction can be sustained by circumstantial evidence
“The circumstantial evidence is so strong against the appellant that no inference can be made from it other than that of guilt. See Onochie v. The Republic (1966) N.M.L.R. 307. As Unsworth EJ. said in The Queen v. Donald Ororosokode (1960) F.S.C.208 at 210 that; “It is true that there are cases in which circumstantial evidence may be the best evidence because (as has been said) it is capable of proving a proposition with the precision of mathematics.” See also Edet Obasi v. The State (1965) N.M.L.R. 129 and R. v. Tapper (1952) A.CA 80 at 489.”
