The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the death sentence passed on a farmer and father of five, James Afolabi.
Afolabi, who hails from Kogi State, was earlier convicted and sentenced to death by a High Court in the state capital, Lokoja, in 2012 for the murder of a Fulani man, Abubakar Mohammed.
The court relied on Afolabi’s confessional statement to the police, where he claimed to have shot Mohammed on the chest for straying into his yam and cassava plantation on February 27, 2009.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja on March 22, 2012, dismissed Afolabi’s appeal and upheld the High Court judgement.
On Friday, a five-man bench of the apex court unanimously dismissed a further appeal by the convict, holding that there was no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and appeal court.
He added, “And in any case, this court held in Mohammed v State (2007) 11 NWLR (pt 1045) 303 at 230 paragraph F that where an accused person confesses to a crime, in the absence of an eyewitness of the killing, he can be convicted on his confession alone.
“For all I have said, I hold a strong view that the court below was on a strong wicket when it upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant upon reliance on his confessional statements,” he said.
Justice Okoro also sided with the lower court in concluding that the intention of the appellant was to kill the victim.
“In the instant case, the appellant states emphatically, in Exhibit D (confessional statement), adjudged to have been freely and voluntarily made, that he aimed his gun at the chest of the deceased at close range and shot him.
“It was his further evidence that the deceased fell down and could not move again. At that point, he ran to the village head and reported that he had killed a man.
“In the circumstance, did he intend to kill the man? I had earlier stated in this judgement that a person is taken to intend that natural and probable consequences of his act.
“So, when the appellant aimed his gun at the chest of the deceased and shot it, did he intend to keep him alive? I do not think so. At least he intended to cause him grievous bodily harm.
“And, in view of the force of a gunshot aimed at the heart, the engine room of a man’s life, it can safely be concluded that the appellant intends to kill the deceased on his action, the report he made to the village head notwithstanding.
“Had the appellant shot the deceased on the leg, maybe, one would have thought otherwise. At the age of the appellant, he ought to have known that the part of the body of the deceased he aimed at (the heart) was the last that could have entered his mind if he had intended the man to stay alive.