JIBRIL V. THE STATE

• Pages: 75-77

JIBRIL V. THE STATE



75

JIBRIL V. THE STATE

5

BAWA JIBRIL

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

28th March, 1968.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 392/1967

Criminal Law - Evidence - EYidence of accused's age called after defence

counsel's release - No opportunity given to defence counsel to cross-examine

20





and address court - Whether irregular - s. 33(d) of the Supreme Court Act.

- Section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Northern Nigeria.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether it is irregular for a judge to call evidence on a defendant's age without

25





giving his counsel the opportunity of being present so as to cross-examine and

address the court.

FACTS:

The appellant was convicted on a charge of culpable homicide punishable with

death, and sentenced to death. II was submitted for the appellant on appeal, that

30





he was wrongly sentenced to death, and that the evidence on which the judge held

the appellant to be over seventeen at the time of the offence, was taken in irregu-

lar circumstance. The appellant's counsel upon his request was released by the

Judge from attending judgment on the date adjourned for judgment. On that date

the Judge called evidence as to the age of the appellant, but when releasing learned

35





counsel he had given no indication that in the event of his convicting the appellant,

he intended to call evidence as to the appellant's age.

HELD:

1.

When releasing the counsel for the appellant the Judge gave no indication that

in the event of his convicting the appellant he intended to call evidence as to

40





the appellant's age and therefore it was irregular in the circumstances to call it

without giving the appellant's counsel the opportunity of being present so as

to cross-examine and address the court further.

2.

The Supreme Court followed the same course as in

Oladirneji v. The Queen

(1964) N.M.L.R. 31 and referred the question for inquiry and report to a special

45



commissioner, under s. 33(d) of the Supreme Court Act.

CASE REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Oladimeji v. The Queen

(196

,

0 N.M.L.R 31.

50



Cole

for the Appellant.

Belgore,

D.D.P.P. (North), for the Respondent.