LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Joint Trial — Acquittal of One Accused — Effect on Co-Accused Where Evidence Not Identical
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the evidence against co-accused is in all material respects the same, a doubt resolved in favour of one must be resolved in favour of the others; however, where the doubt resolved in favour of one did not arise in the case of another, the latter is not entitled to the benefit of that doubt.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Akpan v. State (2002) NLC-2092000(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras D–C.
"When the evidence against two or more accused persons in a criminal case is in all material respect the same, and a doubt resolved by the trial Judge in favour of one of the accused persons, the same doubt should be resolved in favour of the other or others. Consequently, if one is acquitted and discharged, the other or others should also be acquitted and discharged. Differently put, where an accused is jointly tried with another or other accused persons and their case is clearly interwoven and inseparable from one another, the conviction of one cannot stand where the other accused person was acquitted and discharged. However, where the doubt resolved in favour of one accused did not arise in the case of another, the latter is not entitled to the benefit of that doubt."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When co-accused are tried jointly and the evidence against them is identical, an acquittal of one must lead to acquittal of all. However, if the evidence differs, the acquittal of one does not entitle others to acquittal. The principle ensures consistency in joint trials. The court must examine whether the cases are interwoven. The rule applies where the doubt resolved in favour of one is also present in the others’ cases. The appellant must show that the evidence against him is identical to that against the acquitted co-accused. The principle protects against inconsistent verdicts. The court will examine the evidence separately.