Try asking the following...
The following joint judgment was delivered.
BUTLER LLOYD, AG. C J., NIGERIA, GRAHAM PAUL AND BROOKE, JJ.
This was-, an appeal against a conviction for an offence against section 114 (1) of the Criminal Code. The trial Judge in finding the accused guilty of judicial corruption records his reasons that ~'in my opinion the section under which the charge is laid makes " asking" for a bribe an offence and the "receiving" of a bribe another separate offence. The particulars charge the accused with " asking and receiving" a bribe ... I shall cure the irregularity, if irregularity it be, by finding him guilty of corruptly asking for the sum of £2 and excluding the receiving."
The grounds of appeal are :---
1. No sufficient and legal evidence to justify the conviction.
2. No corroborative evidence to support the conviction.
3. The learned Judge misdirected himself by holding that there was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of accomplices.
4. Verdict against the weight of evidence.
5. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself by holding that although there was a political conspiracy by the witnesses for the Crown against the appellant, yet that it has no bearing or weight to discredit their evidence .
6. Conclusive evidence of a trap laid for the appellant by the witnesses for the Prosecution
Further grounds were added :-
7. Misdirection by trial Judge as to the evidence given by the witness T. E. R. A. Green
8. As an act of omission forming the consideration of the bribe.
9. Misdirection and non-direction as to the defence generally put forward.
The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the embarrassment caused by the combination of the two different acts of " asking" and" receiving" in the one charge but the trial Judge particularly directed himself to the separation of the two offences in the passage of his judgment quoted above.
The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the embarrassment caused by the combination of the two different acts of " asking" and" receiving" in the one charge but the trial Judge particularly directed himself to the separation of the two offences in the passage of his judgment quoted above.
The main argument was directed to the fact that the witness Lawani Dawodu was an accomplice and reliance was placed on the case of R. v. George 4 N.L.R. 5: Corroboration, it is therefore contended, was necessary and there was in fact none in this case. The decision in this much quoted case cannot howev