LT. CDR M. C. ABUBAKAR -Vs- THE NIGERIAN ARMY

LT. CDR M. C. ABUBAKAR -Vs- THE NIGERIAN ARMY

September 2025

Subject Matters

  • Court: Evaluation of evidence – role of trial court thereto – whether accords weight to conflicting scientific evidence

    Criminal Law and Procedure: Constitutional right of accused – whether the constitutional right guaranteed to an accused person is applicable during trial and not during investigation

    Criminal Law and Procedure: Right of accused to remain silent – implication thereof

    Criminal Law and Procedure: Convening a court martial – statutory powers thereto

    Court: Evaluation of evidence – where evidence is direct, credible and uncontradicted – the role of trial court thereto – whether appellate court will be slow to disturb findings of the trial court

    Court: Supreme Court – attitude to concurrent findings – relevant principles

    Practice and Procedure: Proof – whether the evidence of a single credible witness can grant conviction

    Practice and Procedure: Defence – where accused refused to testify and remain silent – whether it lents probative weight to the evidence of prosecution

    Practice and Procedure: Convening a court martial – duty on commanding officer – whether it is not obligatory – sec. 181(1) of the Armed Forces Act considered

    Practice and Procedure: Court Martial Proceedings – whether must be in line with the Armed Forces Act

    Statute: Interpretation thereof – whether must be read in whole and not in isolation

ISSUES:

       1    “Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to affrrm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant of the alleged offences when Exhibits 3 and 5 (Report of Investigation and Result Analysis of the vessel) taken together with the evidence of PWS, PW6 and PW7 clearly shows that the alleged stealing did not take place at the time the Appellant was on duty of the vessel?

2. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to affirrm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant on the sole evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 who were accomplices and whose evidence were          substantially hearsay, contradictory, irreconcilable and uncorroborated?

3. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to hold that the Naval Court Martial Rules 3 of BR 11 could override the provisions of Section 123 of the Armed Forces Act Laws of the Federation 2004 which makes conduct of investigation by an accused comrnanding officer and signing of the report mandatory before a court martial may be convened?

4. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to hold that the circumstantial letter recommending the convocation of a court to try the Appellant was valid when it was not signed by the Appellant‘s commanding offlcer?“

Recent post

Monthly Judgements of the Supreme & Appeal Courts of Nigeria

Categories