ABUJA — A Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has voided the verdict of a Niger State high court which convicted one Mallam Idris Rabiu in 1998 of a criminal charge of rape upon his entering a plea of guilt. The appellate court which reversed the conviction following an appeal by the ex-convict held that admittance of guilt by Rabiu was insufficient evidence for the trial court to reach the verdict.
In a lead judgment delivered by the presiding judge in the case, Justice Tanko Muhammad, the court held that unless an accused person distinctly admitted each and every fact essential to an offence, he could not be convicted merely on his plea.
Other justices on the panel including Justices Zainab Bulkachuwa and Albert Oduyemi concurred with Justice Tanko’s reasoning.
Counsel to the appellant (Rabiu), Mr Chukwuma Machukwu–Ume had held that since there was no evidence placed before the learned trial chief judge apart from the "plea" of guilt by the appellant, I do not think it was safe for the learned trial chief judge to convict the accused solely on his plea.
The presiding judge in the case not only agreed with Chukwumah’s submission but also held that the court below had a duty to warn itself of the danger of convicting the appellant solely on his plea of guilt. Said Justice Tanko: "A plea of guilt is not and cannot be conclusive proof of guilt in law."
He cited Nwawbonyi vs The State (1994) 5NWLR 138, wherein the Supreme court formulated conditionalities which should assist a court in evaluating such admissions/confessions in a criminal trial.
Further agreeing with the appellant’s position, the court said the essence of the aforelisted conditions was to establish a common ground that the accused had admitted all the facts and knew the implication of his admittance, declaring that unless these facts were clearly admitted "he cannot be convicted."
Justice Mahmud also averted his mind to the issue of fair hearing raised by the appellant’s counsel: "The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that non-representation of the appellant by a legal counsel is a denial of fair hearing and that the trial court declined to adjourn to enable the appellant secure a counsel and that the court ought to have assigned a counsel to the appellant knowing the gravity of the offence and its punishment.
