Law COMPANION Is Restricted by Territory, That Law Cannot Be Applied Outside That Territory

JOSEPH MORAH APPELLANT

AND

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT

SC.160/2015

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC

KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS JSC

(Delivered Lead Judgment)

JOHN INYANG OKORO JSC PAUL ADAMULAW GALINJE COMPANION JSC

AT ABUJA, ON FRIDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2018

COURT- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements took place in two or more states- Entry into a state where one of the elements occur- What constitutes.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of.

EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for.

EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction.

EVIDENCE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes.

JURISDICTION- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states-LAW Court with jurisdiction COMPANION to try. STATUTES- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of.

STATUTES- Territorial application or jurisdiction of a statutes or law- Purport of.

FACTS:

The 1st accused and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of fraud. Thereafter the prosecution called 5 witnesses. The appellant and the 1st accused each testified and called no other witness for their defence. The trial Court delivered its judgment on 7 October, 2013 convicting the appellant on each of the three counts and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment on each count. The sentences were to run concurrently.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court in his Notice of Appeal dated 24 February, 2015.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant when the trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to try the appellant of the offences (Ground 1). 2. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant to warrant the Court of Appeal upholding the conviction (Grounds 2, 3 and 4).

HELD: (Unanimously Dismissing the Appeal)

1. On the Purport of Territorial Jurisdiction of a Law or Statute. This meansLAW that if a law COMPANION is restricted by territory, that law cannot be applied outside that territory. However, if an offence is committed outside Nigeria but part of the offence is committed in Nigeria, the Courts would acquire jurisdiction to try the case in Nigeria. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page 2. On the Court with Jurisdiction to Entertain an Offence with Multiple Elements which happened in two or more states. If a crime is one with multiple elements, with the initial and subsequent elements happening in different states, the position of the law is that each state has a right to try the offender and punish him as if all the elements of the offence were carried out in that State. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page 3. On the Purport of Section 124(2)(b) of the criminal code. By the provision of S.12A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, if part of an offence was carried out in one State, and the other parts of the offence were committed in another State, if the offender later comes into the initial state, he would be held liable as if he committed the whole offence in that state. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page

4. On what Constitutes entry into the Territory where in element of a crime was Committed. Thus, this means that entry into the territory in which the crime was committed could be effected by arrest and is not necessarily voluntary. However, this provision would not apply in a situation in which the only event that happens in the particular territory is the death of a person whose death was caused outside the territory; S. 12A(2) Criminal Code. For example, if a person is wounded in a fight while in the southern region but he dies from that injury while in the northern region, the code to be applied would be the Criminal Code. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page 5. On when act or Omission of an co- conspirator will be ascribed to other conspirators. The law is that when a co-conspirator does an act or makes an omission in furtherance of a conspiracy, his act or omission is ascribable and binding on all the conspirators. Although the appellant never visited Abuja until the trial, Sani Musa's meeting the PW1 rubs off on the appellant because it was their common intention that was being executed by Sani Musa. Per K.B. Akaahs JSCLAW at page COMPANION 6. On when act or Omission of an co- conspirator will be ascribed to other conspirators. In Ikwunne v. State (supra), Tobi JCA (as he then was) at pages 560 - 561 explained that in the offence of conspiracy, the conspirators may be in direct communication in respect of the offence and only one person may be the hub of which the others revolve in respect of the offence. It is therefore possible for the offence of conspiracy to be committed by the persons who have not met or known themselves and the conspirators need not be seen together planning the offence. A Court of law can infer from criminal acts of the parties, including evidence of complicity. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page 7. On what the prosecution must prove in a charge of Conspiracy. In a charge of conspiracy, the prosecution has the burden to prove not only the inchoate or rudimentary nature of the offence but also the meeting of the minds of the accused persons with a common intention and purpose to commit a particular offence. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page

8. On what Constitutes the offence Obtaining by false Pretence. The 2nd accused and Elvis who is at large, had known each other before 26/5/2006 the day the money exchanged hands. They knew that there was no Dollar to be given to Alhaji Nurudeen in exchange for the naira equivalent which they collected from PW1. After collecting the monies from PW1 they left in a taxi to Maryland. If they had no intention to defraud PW1 they would have made effort to ensure that their purported partner in Ghana transferred the $250,000 US Dollars or refund the money to PW1 when the exchange transaction did not go through. Since there is no denial by the 2nd accused that they collected the various sums in issue from PW1, the 2nd accused and Elvis had a premeditated design to obtain the amounts under consideration from PW1; consequently the ingredients of obtaining money by false pretence have been fully established against the 2nd accused in counts 2 and 3. Per K.B. Akaahs JSC at page 9. On the Court with Jurisdiction to Entertain an Offence with Multiple Elements which happened in two or more states. It has long been held by this Court that where an element of an offence is started, LAW continued or COMPANION concluded in any of two states, both State High Courts have jurisdiction to try the offence thus committed. In the instant case, the initial contact of the first accused with PW1 in Abuja to negotiate the sale of the Dollars was to the knowledge of the Appellant. That initial contact was when the foundation of the commission of the offence was laid. Thus, although the payment of the money was made in Lagos, that did not rob the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory of the jurisdiction to try the case. In other words, the offence was started in Abuja and concluded in Lagos. I agree that the High Court of the FCT had jurisdiction to try and convict the appellant. J.I. Okoro JSC at page 10. On the Purport of Section 124(2)(b) of the criminal code. Section 12A (2)(b) of the Criminal Code provides that if part of an offence is carried out in one state, and the other part was committed in another state, and the offender later enters into the initial state, he would be held liable as if he committed the whole offence in the State. P.A. Galinje JSC at page

11. On what Constitutes the Offence of Conspiracy. When Sani Musa and John Obiamalu met PW1 at Abuja and proposed to sell $1.6 million, they knew very well that they did not have such money. They were therefore acting in furtherance of their common intention with the Appellant to defraud PW1. Therefore, the conspiracy that culminated into the offence that took place in Lagos started here in Abuja. I am of the firm view that the Appellant conspired with Sani Musa, and Elvis Ezeani as well as unknown persons from Ghana to commit the offences for which the Appellant was charged. P.A. Galinje JSC at page 12. On the gist of the Offence of Conspiracy. In a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove that the conspirators were seen together at the same time. Conspirators need not know each other. They also need not have started the conspiracy at the same time. For a conspiracy started by some persons may be joined at a later stage or stages by others. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of the mind of the conspirators. P.A. Galinje JSC at page LAW COMPANION

CASES REFERRED TO

1. Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt.779) 437; 2. Adekunle v. State (1989) 20 NSCC (Pt.III) 403 3. Alabi v. The Queen (1959) SC NLR 259; (1959) WRNLR 197; 4. Alagba v. R (1950) 19 NLR 19; 5. Chief Lere Adebayo v. The State (2012) LPELR 9454: 6. Ede v. State (1977) 1 FCA 95 7. Gbadamosi v. The State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.196) 182. 8. Haruna v. State (1972) NSCC 550 9. Ikwunne v. State (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt.658) 550. 10. Jimoh Atanda v. Attorney-General Western Nigeria (1955) NMLR 225. 11. Njovens v. The State (1973) 1 NMLR 331. 12. Njovens v. The State (1973) 5 SC 17.

13. Njovens v. The State (1973) NSCC 257 14. Nyame v. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344 15. Omini v. State (1999) 9 SC 1; (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt.630) 168 16. Patrick Njovens v. State (1973) 1 NMLR 331 (1973) ANLR 371 17. Patrick Njovens v. The State (1973) 1 NWLR 331 (1973) NSCC 257. (1973) ANLR 371. 18. Queen v. Bello (1962) 2 SCNLR 381 (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt.4) 633 19. R v. Meyick & Rebuff (1929) 21 CAR 94, 20. R v. Osoba (1961) All NLR 1, 21. Sirdar Gurdyal Sineh v. The Rajah of Faridkote (1894) A. C. 670, 22. Sunday Okoro v. Attorney General of Western Nigeria (1965) 4 NSCC 225,

STATUTES REFERRED TO 1. Sections 1(1)(a), 8 (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Decree No. 13 of 1995 as amended by the Tribunals (Certain ConsequentialLAW Amendments COMPANION etc) Decree No. 62 of 1999 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Decree. 2. Sections 14, 12A (2)(b) of the Criminal Code Act 3. Section 8(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 4. Section 257(1) and (2) of 1999 Constitution, 5. Sections 4, 4(2) Penal Code Act Cap 532 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja) 1990

Names of Counsel

Yunus Lambo Akanbi Esq. with him, K. T. Sulyman and Evelyn Eyang Takon for Appellant. For Appellant

AND

Chile Okoroma Esq. with him, Ola Oji and I. Diribe for Respondent

For Respondent

LEAD JUDGMENT

As Delivered By KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on 29 January, 2015 dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 8 October 2013.

The appellant was the 2nd accused in Charge No.CR/07/06 wherein he stood trial with John Obiamalu (1st accused) on an amended 3 count charge which reads as follows:-

COUNT ONE LAW COMPANION

That you John Obiamalu, Joseph Morah, Elvis Ezeani (now at large) and Sani Musa (now at large) on or about the 25 day of May 2006 at Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory did agree among yourselves to commit illegal act to wit: Obtaining money under false pretence, and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 8 (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Decree No. 13 of 1995 as amended by the Tribunals (Certain Consequential Amendments etc) Decree No. 62 of 1999 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Decree.

COUNT TWO

That you John Obiamalu, Joseph Morah, Elvis Ezeani (now at large) and Sani Musa (now at large) on or about 25 day of May 2006 at Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory did with intent to defraud obtain the sum of ₦13,500,000.00 (Thirteen Million, Five Hundred