In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23rd day of March 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye Bode Rhodes-Vivour Mary Ukaego Perter-Odili ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Justice Supreme Court Justice Supreme Court Justice Supreme Court Justice Supreme Court Justice Supreme Court SC.190/2010 Between Chukwudi Ugwanyi ...... Appellant And Federal Republic of Nigeria ...... Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by Bode RhodesVivour. JSC The appellant was charged and arraigned on a one count charge which reads: That you Chukwudi Ugwanyi (M) 50 years of age, of No 4 Arowojobe Street, Onigbongbo Maryland, Lagos on or about the 17th November 2000 at Bodinga along Sokoto-Yauri Road, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, and without lawful authority had in your possession 26 kilograms of Indian Hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to Cocaine and Heroin and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10H of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Act No 15 of 1992. Hobon, J of the Federal High Court, Sokoto Division presided. The appellant entered a not guilty plea. Two witnesses testified for the prosecution. Both of them are officers from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The prosecution tendered in court the following items, which were admitted as Exhibits: A. Certificate of testing analysis B. Packing of substance Forms C. Request for scientific aid D1 - D12 Twelve wrapped Sellotaped bundles recovered from the appellant. E. Drug analysis Report dated 4/1/2005 E2. Transparent evidence pouch with substances feature and descriptions of the accused and the case. (ie what exhibit E contained). F1 - 3. Certificate of conviction in Niger Republic together with attachments. Evidence was led by the prosecution witnesses to show how the appellant was arrested with 26 Kilograms of Indian hemp. At the close of the prosecution case the appellant gave evidence as DW1. He did not call any witness or tender any document. In a judgment delivered on the 21st day of June 2005 the learned trial judge concluded as follows: “Consequently the prosecution has proved the case of possession of Indian hemp beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person and the accused person failed to rebut and bring himself within the defences or exceptions allowed under the law creating the offence. I therefore accept the evidence of the prosecution and hereby find the accused person guilty of the offence charged …..”