The Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentences passed on Samuel Attah, Vincent Friday, Ikechukwu Sunday and Hyginus Oformata for armed robbery by the Federal High Court Kano.
Justice Olufunke Adekeye, who delivered the judgment prepared by Justice Dahiru Musdapher, said that the trial court exercised its discretion based on the evidence placed before it.
â€œHaving considered all the identical issues in the appeals with numbers SC/44/2009 and SC/45/2009, we collectively resolved them against the appellants. The two identical appeals are therefore dismissed by me and I affirm the decisions of the lower courts,â€™â€™ Musdapher said.
Samuel Attah and Vincent Friday yesterday, convicted for the same offence, filed two separate appeals against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna, on January 6, 2009, confirming the death sentences passed on them.
At the hearing of the appeals, the appellate court had directed the appellants to consolidate their issues since the briefs were identical.
The appellants had sought to know whether the discretion of the trial judge who granted a leave to prefer charges against them was exercised in accordance with the law.
They also sought a declaration on whether there was enough credible and admissible evidence before the Court of Appeal, Kaduna, that affirmed their sentences.
The appellants sought a further clarification on whether the non-compliance of the judgment of the trial court with the mandatory provisions of section 269 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not vitiate the entire proceedings.
The appeal sought further answer to whether the appellantsâ€™ defence of â€œalibiâ€ were adequately considered and rightly rejected by the lower courts.
The appellants had prayed the apex court to verify whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that an identification parade was unnecessary.
The appellants in their briefs contended that the leave granted to prefer the charge before the trial court ran contrary to the provisions of Section 185 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kano State.
They submitted that the action also violated the Criminal Procedure Application for leave to prefer a charge in the High Court Rules 1970 because the proofs of evidence of the witnesses were not accompanied with the application.