- Bamidele V. State {2019} LPELR 46885
- Ikemson V. State {1989} 3 NWLR pt 110 p 455
In paragraph 3.14 counsel to the 3rd defendant further
submitted that since the statement was recorded in
contravention of section 17(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Sokoto
State ACJL 2019, the statement is not admissible.
- Owhoruke V. COP {2015} 7 SCM 242
- Salawu V. State {2010} 28 WLR 148
Defence counsel for both 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants finally
urge the court to discharge and acquit the defendants of all
the three {3} counts charges.
In her response, the prosecuting counsel submitted that the
contents of exhibit ‘E’ and ‘E1’ which is the statement of the
3rd defendant, shows that all the 3 defendants are involved in
the planning and execution of the dastardly act because what
is required to be proved in the offence of criminal conspiracy,
is the existence of agreement between the conspirators.
- Adaku V. State {2009} 4 NCC 350 at 356
- Fatai Busari V. State {2015} 11 NCC 43 at 48
- Daniel Okafor V. State {2016} 13 NCC 395
- Salawu V. State {2015} 11 NCC 1
In paragraph 4.2 of her adopted written address, the
prosecution submitted that the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5
and Exhibit E and E1, showed that the defendants are the
persons who abducted PW3 one Hajiya Maryam Muhammed on
the fateful date.
22