THE QUEEN V. EZECHI

• Pages: 78-82

78



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1962] N.S.C.C.

person could not. In support of this it is said that a conspiracy to defraud a spe-

cific named person would be indictable under some other section of the Code,

but this would not invariably be so. In our view, the natural meaning in their con-

text of the words "any person, whether a particular person or not" includes both

a specific named person and an unknown number of unascertained persons, and



5

we see no grounds for not giving the words this natural meaning.

The second count charged a conspiracy "to effect an unlawful purpose, name-

ly to defeat the intention and purpose of the Eastern Region Local Government

Law, 1955, and the Regulations made thereunder in relation to contracts by frau-

dulently arranging the supplies of materials for the building of the Oshiri Dispen-



10

sary and Quarters, contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid law'. The reference

to defeating the intention and purpose of a law as an unlawful purpose is said to

be based on a passage in the judgment of Goddard, L.C.J. in

R. v. Newland

37

Cr. App. R. 154, 165, where the common law offence of conspiracy to effect a

public mischief was under consideration. Without entering upon a discussion at



15

large of the meaning of the words "unlawful purpose" in section 518(6) of the Crimi-

nal Code it will be enough to say that we are not satisfied that the count as drafted

discloses a conspiracy punishable under that particular paragraph of the section

and that it was for this reason that we quashed the conviction.

Appeal on the First count



20

dismissed.

Appeal on the Second count

allowed.

25

THE QUEEN V. EZECHI

30

THE QUEEN



APPELLANT

V

L.V. EZECHI



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 436/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

26th February, 1962.

Criminal Law- Bribery - E. Nigeria Local Government Law, 1955 (E.N. No. 26

of 1955) - Section 38A(2).

Evidence- Accomplice and Victim distinguished - Evidence Act, Cap. 62 section

177(1) - Uncorroborated Evidence of accomplice - Failure of trial Judge to



45

direct himself as to risk involved in convicting upon such evidence.

ISSUE:

1.

When may a person be considered to be a

participes criminis?

2.

When may a person, other than a co-accused, be considered an accomplice.



50

3.

When may a person who gives a bribe be considered an accomplice rather

than a victim, on a charge of obtaining a bribe.

4.

Whether a trial Judge must caution himself before accepting the uncorroborated

evidence of an accomplice.

35

40