The Story

Adapted from the Judgment of Nweze, JSC in John v. State [2019] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 160.

On the fateful day (November 18, 2005), the Appellant went to a shop parading himself as a customer. Samuel, the son of the woman who owns the shop, went to attend to the Appellant’s demand. The Appellant gave the sum of One Hundred Naira (N100) to Samuel. As Samuel gave the Appellant the tom-tom he had asked for and turned to look for change (N80.00), the Appellant pulled a gun and pointed at Samuel. Perceiving danger, Samuel’s mother, Mrs. Dorcas Olaniyi, who was lying down in the shop at the time, screamed. The Appellant threatened to kill both of them if she did not keep quiet. Having ordered Samuel and his mum to lie down, the Appellant went away with One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Five Naira (N1,705.00), being the money they made for that day, and two (2) rolls of Peak Milk.

The Charge

As the Appellant made to escape with the help of his accomplice (who was outside diverting customers away from the shop), the Appellant was apprehended, while his accomplice escaped. The Appellant was charged with the offence of armed robbery. Samuel and his mum testified as witnesses and their testimonies were not discredited. The Appellant was thereafter found guilty, convicted and accordingly sentenced to death.

On Appeal

The Appellant challenged his conviction and sentence at the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed. He approached the Supreme Court contending, amongst others, that the charge was not signed by a known legal practitioner. The Supreme Court would have none of that. Nweze, JSC explained the position of the law thus:

“…Any objection to a charge for any formal defect [surely, an allegation bordering on the absence of the signature of a known legal practitioner is a formal defect] on the face thereof shall be taken immediately after the charge had been read over to the accused person and not later. Put differently, an accused person is under obligation to raise any objection to any formal defect to a charge before he takes his plea… Where he fails to do so, he is presumed to have understood the charge preferred against him.”

Ariwoola, JSC contributed thus:

“It is noteworthy that the Appellant did not object to the reading of the charge when his plea was being taken at the commencement of his trial. The charge was read clearly and he did not complain about the contents or the body of the charge. He pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge which meant that he understood the charge and was not misled in any way. It is trite law that the appropriate time to complain or object to a charge either as drawn up or formulated, is the time the charge is being read and before the plea. See: Elijah Ameh Okewu Vs. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) 4 SCM 18; (2012)2 SC (Pt.11) 1; (2012) 2 SCNJ 126; (2012) 49 NSCQR 330. Therefore, it was too late in the day for the Appellant to be complaining about the charge on appeal. At the very best, whatever complaint the Appellant had about the arraignment ought to have been taken before the trial Judge and considered with the trial of the main complaint by the prosecution and a ruling given by the trial Court.”

The Appellant’s conviction and sentencing was upheld by the Supreme Court which had no difficulty dismissing the appeal.

Death sentence just for N1,705 and 2 rolls of Peak Milk?

One would wonder why a man would bag death sentence for robbing someone of just N1,705 and 2 rolls of Peak Milk. This may very well suggest more of a hunger-driven robbery. The point must however be noted that the Appellant was not involved in ordinary stealing and/or robbery, but armed robbery. In the eyes of the law, stealing, robbery are different from armed robbery. Both, like all other offences, have their separate definitions under the relevant statutes. On stealing, Section 383 of the Criminal Code provides:

“A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person, anything of capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.”

Robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence while committing the offence of stealing. See Section 11(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The punishment for stealing and robbery is imprisonment for a term of years.

The Supreme Court in Bassey v. The State (2012) LPELR-7813(SC) defined ”Armed Robbery” thus:

“Armed Robbery simply means stealing plus violence used or threatened. While robbery is stealing without violence. Before there is a robbery the suspect must steal something capable of being stolen. Any person in company of a person armed, or aiding or abetting in the commission of the offence is also guilty of armed robbery.”

Stealing is therefore a necessary vital component of robbery and armed robbery. See Rafiu v. The State (2012) LPELR-7897(CA). Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in Smart v. The State (2016) LPELR-40827(SC) put it simply, “Armed robbery is stealing while armed.” See also Section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.

The ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt are: that there was a robbery or series of robberies; that the robbers were armed and that the accused persons committed the said offence. In Nigeria, death sentence is the only ‘reward’ for armed robbery, just like in the charge of murder.

The law on armed robbery is not particularly interested in the item that is subject of the robbery. It is immaterial that what was stolen while armed was of insignificant value. More so, the offensive weapon must not be a gun or firearms. According to Mary Peter-Odili, JSC in Orisa v. The State (2018) LPELR-43896(SC): 

“What would constitute firearms have been defined to include cannon, gun, riffle, pistol etc and offensive in weapons include bow and arrow, spear, cutlass, matchet, dagger etc.”

What about corruption?

Former Nigerian President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan was reportedly quoted (or rather misquoted) sometime ago as stating that stealing is not corruption. The former President has since clarified the context in which he spoke. Whichever the case, what is clear is that offences are well defined under Nigerian laws. Just like we saw above, while stealing is different from robbery or armed robbery (legally speaking), it still forms part of it.

The definition of corruption in the context of our national well-being is so wide in scope. It does accommodate virtually all forms of misuse of public office for private gain – bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, embezzlement, etc. We have several degrees of corruption and its effects also vary.  

When politicians arm themselves with tools of governance to loot national treasury, it may suffice in ordinary English parlance that such should amount to armed robbery. After all, the tools used can reasonably amount to ‘weapons’ and their conducts constitute ‘violent threats’ to our national existence and the future of our children.

While this makes sense, the current state of Nigerian laws do not accommodate such logic and conclusion. So, corrupt politicians and government officials are subject only to the punishments currently prescribed by statutes such as the Criminal Code, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000, etc. None of these laws prescribe death sentence as punishment for corruption.

In some countries like China and North Korea, public officials have been executed or may face death for corruption. In China, a Mayor was recently sentenced to death for corruption. In Nigeria, sometime ago, a Senator proposed death sentence for corrupt officials.

Many Nigerians do not support the move. Some generally share the view that death sentence has never solved any problem. Akintokunbo A. Adejumo believes that “the whole idea of death penalty for corruption is fraught with danger.” Well, the writer shares these sentiments too.