CASE CITATION: IBRAHIM KAMILA v. THE STATE (2018) 1 S.C. (Pt. IV) 114
DATE OF JUDGMENT: FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAYOF JANUARY, 2018
COURT: SUPREME COURT
SUIT: SC. 489/2016
CORAM:
1. MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI (Presided)
2. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD
3. CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI
4. AMIRU SANUSI (Delivered the Leading Judgment)
5. EJEMBI EKO
ISSUE(S): Evidence of Investigating Police Officer (IPO) – Whether Constitutes Hearsay evidence
CASE SYNTHESIS
Again on the quality of the testimony of P.W.3 who is the investigation police officer which the Appellant’s learned counsel called for its discountenance because according to him it is hearsay evidence. Here, I do not share the Appellant’s counsel’s view that the evidence of an IPO amounts to hearsay evidence because as an IPO he narrates to the court the outcome of his investigation or enquiries or what he recovered or discovered in the course of his duty. He must have discovered or recovered some pieces of evidence vital to the commission of the crime which trial courts normally consider in arriving at a just decision one way or the other. The lower court was therefore right in refusing to discountenance such evidence adduced or given by P.W.3
IBRAHIM KAMILA v. THE STATE (2018) 1 S.C. (Pt. IV) 114 @ 138 Para 15-25
[mks_button size=”medium” title=”Click to Read Full Judgment” style=”rounded” url=”https://www.lawbreed.com/site/search-for-case/?case_ref=3620″ target=”_blank” bg_color=”#000000″ txt_color=”#FFFFFF” icon=”” icon_type=”” nofollow=”0″]
