Facts
The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Abia State, Isuikwuato Judicial Division on a one-count charge of kidnapping contrary to Section 3(a) of the Abia State Prohibition of Terrorism, Kidnapping, Hostage Taking, Use of Offensive Weapons or Explosives and other Threatening Behaviour Law, No. 10 of 2009. The case of the Respondent (Prosecution) was that on 26th October 2014, the Appellant, Ifeanyi Ananobi, acting in concert with others, kidnapped a certain Madam Lydia Acho, a 98-year-old woman (“the victim”), from her residence in Isuikwuato Local Government Area of Abia State, and held her hostage. The victim was later rescued on the same day at Ikwuano Local Government Area of the State following a police chase. The Appellant and a co-accused were subsequently apprehended at the scene, with the Appellant sustaining gunshot injuries in the process.
Following his arrest, the Appellant made a statement at the police station which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “B”. He testified as the sole witness in his defence. The Appellant’s defence was that he was travelling from Aba when he conveyed some passengers in his vehicle. By his testimony, some of the passengers later alighted form the vehicle, leaving two persons who allegedly took over the vehicle and used it to carry out the kidnapping. The Appellant claimed that the police pursued the vehicle, forcing the alleged kidnappers to crash into a tree and abandon the vehicle. The Appellant further testified that he was released by the fleeing kidnappers during an exchange of gunfire, during which he was shot. That he hid in the bush overnight and came out the following morning with the intention of reporting the incident at the police station. However, upon coming out of the bush, he was apprehended by the police and subsequently charged with the offence of kidnapping.
At the conclusion of trial, the court delivered its judgement wherein it convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The Supreme Court adopted the sole issue for determination distilled by the Appellant in determining the appeal as follows:
“Whether the court below having regard to the evidence on record was right when it upheld the judgement of the trial court that the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?”
Arguments
Arguing the sole issue, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the lower court erred in law when it affirmed the judgement of the trial court which held that the prosecution proved the offence of kidnapping against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel argued that in line with the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Abia State Prohibition of Terrorism, Kidnapping, Hostage Taking, Use of Offensive Weapons or Explosives and other Threatening Behaviour Law, No. 10 of 2009, the prosecution was under a mandatory duty to prove that the alleged kidnapping was carried out for the purpose of payment of ransom. Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of payment of ransom which is an essential element to prove the offence of kidnapping under the law in Abia State. He submitted that the trial court, whose decision was affirmed by the lower court, wrongly relied on the decision in EMEMOBONG EDET UMOH v STATE (2013) LPELR-21410 (CA) to hold that the offence of kidnapping could be proved with or without a demand for ransom. He posited that the said authority was inapplicable to the instant case, having been decided under Section 16 of the Akwa Ibom State Internal Security and Enforcement Law, 2009, which expressly defines kidnapping to include seizure of a person “with or without demand for ransom.” Counsel maintained that the Abia State law under which the Appellant was charged contains no such provision, and that the courts below were therefore wrong to import the interpretation of a different statute into the instant case. Similarly, Counsel argued that the reliance placed by the lower court on the decision in OKASHETU v STATE (2016) 15 NWLR (PT. 1534) 126 was misconceived, as that case emanated from Delta State and was not decided under Section 3(a) of the Abia State Law.
Counsel argued further that the lower court was wrong to have relied on the testimony of PW2 as it was filled with inconsistencies and lapses, and as such, it was unsafe to convict the Appellant based on the testimony of PW2. He submitted that the police failed to properly investigate the Appellant’s defence that his vehicle was forcefully taken from him at gunpoint. Counsel maintained that from the earliest opportunity, the Appellant informed the police of his abduction, yet no investigation was carried out to verify his account. And that there was no evidence on record contradicting the testimony of the Appellant on how his vehicle was snatched and how he himself was a victim. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of kidnapping “for the purpose of payment of ransom” as required by Section 3(a) of the Abia State Kidnapping Law.
Responding to the submissions of the Appellant, the Respondent argued that the Appellant, by implication, conceded that all other essential ingredients of the offence of kidnapping were duly established by the prosecution at the trial court. Counsel argued that the case of the Appellant is narrowly anchored on the sole contention that the prosecution failed to prove that the kidnapping was carried out with the intention of demanding and receiving ransom. He argued that the testimony of PW2 provided direct insight into the circumstances of the kidnapping and the trial court, rightly found that the intention of the Appellant and his co-marauders was to kidnap victim for the purpose of demanding payment of ransom. He referred to page 114 to 117 of the record of appeal to submit that the contents did not support the arguments of the Appellant that PW2’s testimony was fabricated, contradictory, or disjointed. Rather, PW2’s evidence was found to be cogent, consistent, and credible by the trial court, and this finding was rightly affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Counsel consequently urged the Honourable Court to resolve the sole issue for determination against the Appellant and to affirm the decisions of the trial court.
