DANIEL SUGH
v.
THE STATE
1988-LD-SC-469
Supreme Court
13th May, 1988.
Justices:
Andrews Otutu Obaseki, JSC
Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, JSC
Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC
Philip Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC
Abubakar Bashir Wali, J.S.C (Read The Leading Judgement)
Subject Matter(s):
1. Murder
2. Credibility of Witness
Final Orders:
Appeal Dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
RIGHT(S) OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – Whether an accused can be compelled to give evidence in his trial
“Section 33(11) of the 1979 Constitution provides that- “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at his trial;” while Section 236(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that- “(1) An accused person shall be a competent witness on his own behalf in any inquiry or trial, whether he is accused solely or jointly with another person or persons, and his evidence may be used in proceedings against any person or persons tried jointly with him, and the following provisions shall have effect (a) The accused shall not be examined as a witness except at his own request. (b) ….. (c) Failure of the accused to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution, but the court may draw such inference as it thinks just;” Both Section 33(11) of the 1979 Constitution and Section 236(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code are provisions against compelling an accused person to give evidence in his trial.”
DEFENCE(S) OF ACCUSED PERSON(S) – When is a defence not considered; whether a rejected defence can be said to have been considered by the court
“A defence put forward is not considered when it is not adverted to by the Court – See Ogundiran v. The State (1976) 9 & 10 S.C.77, at p. 90. Where the defence is rejected, it cannot be said that it was not considered. It was considered and rejected.”
CALLING OF WITNESS(ES) – Whether a trial court must call a host of witnesses before it can convict in a criminal trial
“Before a trial court can convict in a criminal trial, it does not have to call a whole host of witnesses upon the same point. It can even convict on the evidence of one witness in a case where the witness is not an accomplice, if the court is satisfied on cogent reasons, with that evidence in preference to that of the defence. See Joshua Alonge v. Inspector-General Of Police (1959) 4 F.S.C. 203; R. v. George Kure 7 W.A.C.A. 175; Anthony Igbo v. The State (1975) 9-11 S.c. 129 and N.M. Ali & Anor. v. The State (1988) 1 S.C.N. R 17 at 27.”
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS – Whether the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the exclusive preserve of the trial court
“Thus issues of facts, evaluation of evidence, credibility of witnesses are within the exclusive competence and domain of the trial court. See Chief Frank Ebba v. Chief Warri Ogodo & Anor. (1984) 12 S.C. 139 at 176 and Omoregie v. Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 41.”
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS – Whether the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the exclusive preserve of the trial court
“It is trite that the assessment of credibility of a witness is a matter within the province of the trial court, as it is only that court that has the advantage of seeing, watching and observing the witness in the witness box. It has the liberty and privilege of believing him and accepting his evidence either as a whole or in part, in preference to the evidence adduced by the defence. And as Oputa, J.S.C., put it in Adelumola v. The State (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part.73) 683 at 690 that “That belief can only be questioned on appeal if it is obviously against the logical drift of the evidence considered as a whole or against the impact of the wave of probabilities disclosed by the evidence.”
