There must be adequate interpretation to an accused person –A/Court
AKINBOLADE DELE V. THE STATE THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA ON FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 CA/AK/128C/2013; LN-eLR/2015/1 (CA) BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS MOJEED ADEKUNLE, JCA MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, JCA JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, JCA
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (delivering the leading judgment):
This appeal is against the judgment of the Ondo State High Court sitting at Ondo delivered on the 15th May, 2012. The appellant and three others were charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 11 R 11 Vol. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 5(b) of the Same Law.
The case of the respondent as can be gathered from the evidence of six witnesses who testified for the prosecution is quite simple. According to Yaya Suberu (PW1), at about 2:00am on the 6th January, 2005 he heard the voice of one of his boys who slept in the passage that leads to his room.
When he asked who was in the house at that hour somebody responded by saying that the boy should keep quiet otherwise he would shoot.
While the Pw1 was walking with his torchlight in hand towards the boy, he saw somebody in the passage run down the staircase. Pw1 shouted “thief, thief” and two other people opened the door to the house. All the three people wore masks. They asked for money. They ransacked the whole house looking for money. They took all the money in the house. They took two handsets and jewelries.
Apart from the guns they carried, the people had an axe, knife and torchlight.
In the morning the Pw1 reported to the police but because the three people wore masked he could not identify any of them. He also did not suspect anyone.
On 13th January, 2005 based on information received, the appellant and the others were arrested.
When Pw1 went to the police station, he saw the appellant with his wife’s jewelries that were stolen.
The appellant in two statements he had made to the police (Exhibits H and H1) talked of different operations carried out by them. But in his defence in court, the appellant denied committing the offence. He once worked for the Pw1 he said but could not continue due to ill-health. Nothing belonging to the Pw1, he said was recovered from him.
After hearing the evidence led by the respondent, one of the accused persons was discharged on a no case submission. The appellant and two others were convicted and sentenced to death for armed robbery after a full blown trial. It is the conviction and sentence to death that have led the appellant here. He filed a Notice of Appeal on 14th June, 2012 containing one ground of appeal. Pursuant to an order of this court made on 19th March, 2014, the appellant filed an amended Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal from which he presented the following issues for determination:
1) Having regards to the circumstances of this case, whether or not the procedure adopted by the lower court has not breached the appellant’s right to fair hearing, (Ground 1 and 2)
2) Whether or not the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant to warrant the conviction.
The respondent adopted the two issues formulated by the appellant.
On issue 1, it was contended that the appellant opted to be tried in Yoruba language. That the appellant’s plea was taken in Yoruba language and he also gave his evidence in Yoruba language. That the Pw2 - Pw6 gave their evidence in English language in spite of the fact that the appellant does not understand English language and no provision was made for an interpreter. This it was submitted was a violation of the Appellant’s right to an interpreter. We were referred to Section 36 (6)(e) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended) and Madu v State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt 482) 386 at 408 D.
It was submitted that the appellant’s constitutional right to an interpreter is a right which is sacrosanct and cannot be waived by counsel.
It was submitted that should the court find that the constitutional right of the Appellant was not breached the court should find that the appellant denied making the extra judicial statement and not that it was involuntarily made. Therefore the trial within trial was inappropriate.
It was further submitted that the statements of the appellant exhibits H and H1 were not subjected to any statutory tests before the lower court relied on them.
On issue 2, it was submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce credible evidence to show that there was a robbery or series of robberies. The Pw1, it was submitted did not identify any of the exhibits as his stolen items. We were referred to Afolalu v. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt 1220) 584 at 612 G-H. Also none of the