The Supreme Court today, Friday, April 22, passed death
sentence on James Afolabi, who had earlier had the same
judgement passed upon him, by the high court in Kogi
state and later the Court of Appeal.
The Apex Court made it known that there was no reason it
will interfere in the simultaneous result of the case at the
lower courts.
Afolabi, an indigene of Kogi state, was investigated and
was found to be guilty of murdering a Fulani indigene in
the person of one Abubakar Mohammed in Lokoja, the
state capital in 2012. Therefore the Kogi state high court
passed death sentence on him.
It was through the convict’s confessional statement that
the lower court relied upon as gotten from the police. He
was said to have shot the deceased on the chest on
February 27, 2009, because the latter was wandering
about on his yam and cassava plantation.
On Friday, April 22, Justice John Inyang Okoro in an appeal
court judgement marked SC/181/2012, ruled on the Court
of Appeal judgement of Abuja on March 22, 2012, stating
that, through the witness, there was enough evidence,
“which gave vent to the confession of the appellant.
“And in any case, this court held in Mohammed v State
(2007) 11 NWLR (pt 1045) 303 at 230 paragraph F that
where an accused person confesses to a crime, in the
absence of an eye witness of the killing, he can be
convicted on his confession alone.
“For all I have said, I hold a strong view that the court
below was on a strong wicket when it upheld the
conviction and sentencing of the appellant upon reliance
on his confessional statements.”
The judge further said:
“In the instant case, the appellant states emphatically, in
Exhibit D (confessional statement), adjudged to have been
freely and voluntarily made, that he aimed his gun at the
chest of the deceased at close range and shot him. It was
his further evidence that the deceased fell down and could
not move again. At that point, he ran to the village head
and reported that he had killed a man.
“In the circumstance, did he intend to kill the man? I had
earlier stated in this judgment that a person is taken to
intend that natural and probable consequences of his act.
“So, when the appellant aimed his gun at the chest of the
deceased and shot it, did he intend to keep him alive? I do
not think so. At least he intended to cause him grievous
bodily harm.
“And, in view of the force of a gunshot aimed at the heart,
the engine room of a man’s life, it can safely be concluded
that the appellant intends to kill the deceased on his
action, the report he made to the village head
notwithstanding.”
Despite the alleged killings of some Fulani in the
Southeastern states, the herdsmen have been criticised
lately for the violent attacks.
