Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Thursday 27th March, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/162/2013 Between: Attorney General of the Federation Complainant VS Magnus Iheanacho Defendant APPEARANCE Parties are present; Mrs. Ugo Ogbunude with Aiye Olatunde Mrs. For the prosecution; Atano E. Mrs. For the defendant. JUDGMENT By an amended charge filed in the Registry of this court on the 17th of September 2013, the defendant is facing a three count charge of causing unlawful carnal knowledge, procuring under false pretence for the purpose of having carnal connection and employing under age as a domestic help. The three count charge reads as follows: (1) That you Mr. Magnus Iheanacho ‘m’ 38 years of AIDC Staff Quarters Utako, Abuja, on or about the month of June 2009 at AIDC Staff Quarters opposite Customs Quarters Utako District within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court caused the unlawful carnal knowledge of Eucharia Uka ‘f’ 12 years of Dei-Dei Tomato Junction while having custody of her and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13 (1) of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act, 2003 as amended. (2) That you Mr. Magnus Iheanacho ‘m’ 38 years of AIDC Staff Quarters Utako, Abuja, on or about the month of June 2009 at AIDC Staff Quarters opposite Customs Quarters Utako District within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court procured Eucharia Uka ‘f’ 12 years of Dei-Dei Tomato Junction under false pretence, to have carnal connection with you and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 18 (b) of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act, 2003 as amended. (3) That you Mr. Magnus Iheanacho ‘m’ 38 years of AIDC Staff Quarters Utako, Abuja, on or about the month of June 2009 at AIDC Staff Quarters opposite Customs Quarters Utako District within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court employed Eucharia Uka ‘f’ 12 years of Dei-Dei Tomato Junction, as a domestic help outside her family environment and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 22 (1) of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act, 2003 as amended. The substituted or amended charge was read to the defendant on 8th of October 2013 and he pleaded not guilty to all counts. On the 22nd of October 2013, the prosecution opened its case by calling the 1st PW in person of Miss Eucharia Uka who on account of her age was examine and given preliminary questions by the court to determine whether or not the witness understands the value of an oath and the essence of judicial evidence. After a satisfactory answer by the witness, she proceeded to give her evidence; the 1st PW, Identified the defendant as the man called Magnus Iheanacho, whom she knew through a nurse who was her father’s tenant. After the introduction to her father, the defendant became a family friend of the witness parents and family. The nurse in question was said to be the one handing all the health needs of the witness family and since there was a good relationship with the nurse, the same relationship was extended to the defendant. The witness testified further that as a result of distance between the nurse place of duty and her father’s house, nurse relocated to the defendants house since they are brother and sister. On a particular day, the witness testified, the defendant was seen in their house which elicited great joy and happiness in the family and when PW1 Mum inquired from the defendant about the wellbeing of the nurse, they were all shocked to hear that the nurse who left their house recently as a tenant was dead. The defendant then requested from the witness parents to release the witness who was about twelve years then to come and assist him in taking care of the two children left behind by the deceased nurse. The defendant then pleaded passionately since the children, Chisom and Miracle, were of tender age. The witness went further to say that her father reluctantly release her to go since the deceased and the defendant were close as family friends, moreover the deceased nurse do not use to collect money for any services rendered when she treats the children whenever they fall sick; according to the witness, it was not the policy of her father to allow any of the children to live or stay outside the home but for the love the family had for the deceased nurse. The witness was then released to the defendant to go and stay with him for the purpose of taking care of the two children of the deceased nurse pending the time the elder daughter of the decease come back from the mother’s burial in the village. When the witness got to the defendant, she testified that she was subjected to all kinds of domestic duties such as washing the defendants cloths, going to the market, washing of plates, taking care of the two children namely Chisom and Miracle. The witness testified that she took ill after two weeks of arriving defendants house but was taken to the hospital where a nurse treated her for fever and was subjected to a pregnancy test at the request of the defendant which was negative. The witness mother and sister visited her during this sickness period and bought provisions for her. The witness testified further that the defendant use to come to where she was sleeping every evening to touch her and when she cry and push the defendant away, the defendant will tell her that the nurse that treated her when she was sick had advise that if the defendant makes love and have carnal knowledge of her, the sickness and fever will disappear and she will never be sick again. The witness testified that she rebutted the defendant as that was not true; the defendant, according to the witness persisted each night and on a particular occasion when she pushed the defendant away, the defendant got very angry and slapped her and asked her to pack her load and leave his house at 10pm that night. The witness then packed her belongings and left the house and on the way the defendant pursued her and begged her to come back to the house as he expected the witness to beg him instead of leaving the house. The witness was then brought back to the house by the defendant, spread a mat at the entrance to the toilet and requested the witness to lie and sleep therein. The witness complied and when a young lady came to advise her to beg the defendant so that she can be allowed to come inside and sleep, the defendant slapped the girl whose name is Patience for seeing her close to her near the toilet. The said Patience was asked to go inside the room to sleep along with her on the same bed. The witness testified that on getting inside the room, she decided to sit on the chair as she was afraid of what may happen to her that night on the bed. The witness further said that later on, the defendant ask Patience and her to put on night gown after a shower in the bath room and since she was not having a night gown, she was given one by the defendant, belonging to the deceased nurse first daughter who was yet to come back from her mother’s burial. It is her evidence that she and Patience went to sleep on the bed together that night and suddenly in the midnight she noticed a heavy person on her, took her two hands on her head, use his hand to remove her pant and had sexual intercourse with her that night; she tried to push him away but for the weight and she notice that Patience who was originally with her on the same bed was nowhere to be found as the witness started shouting and crying for help but to no avail until the defendant had his way, and when the defendant got up from the witness, there was blood stain on the bed sheet which he folded and was washed by Patience in the morning. According to the witness, the defendant left her for two days, after which she was forced and rape again on three different days in the house. It is the further testimony of the witness that when the senior sister came to visit her, the defendant warned her not to allow the sister to know anything about the sexual intercourse he was having with her or else she will be killed. The witness then requested the sister to take her away from the house and upon this, the sister went to take excuse and permission to take the witness away to the father as the father had requested her presence during the Christmas celebration. The defendant was said to have objected until he was paid his monthly salary to enable him buy some things for the witness including their transport money. A week later, the witness sister came with transport money and when the defendant objected on the same ground, he was excuse as they had enough money with them; the witness testified that she was taken to the hospital by the parents after noticing some changes in her personal appearance and was confirmed pregnant by the Doctor. The witnessed testified that after she explained every of her ordeal to the father and the family, they started crying. The witness, her parents and some elders from their village and town went to visit the defendant and on sighting them, the defendant prostrated, begged and pleaded to marry her and when the witness father got angry on account of the age of the witness, the defendant cited examples of age 10 and 11 girls who are giving birth to children and then provided an alternative of an abortion through a nurse to solve the problem as the defendant offered to foot the bill. The witness testified also that the father reported the matter to the Police Station at Utako where it was later referred to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person and other related matters (NAPTIP) from where the case was charged to court. The witness further said that she decided not to run away or tell anyone during this sexual intercourse ordeal because the defendant use to beat her on any slight excuse, seize her phone to make her incommunicado and several times threatened to use pressing iron and hot boiling Ring on her body. The witness said she was operated upon under ceasars condition before she had the baby as she could not naturally deliver on her own because of her age. Under cross examination by the defendant counsel Mr. Nathaniel Nwoke, the witness agreed that the defendant was a family friend and that she did not know how much her father arranged with the defendant to pay for the domestic work she was doing at the defendant’s house but insisted that the defendant did not pay her any money. The witness said that Nnabenyi did not pay her any money as the father of the two children. The witness said, she was a virgin when she came to the defendants house and when she was being forced on the bed, the defendant use to switch off the light and he did not use touch light, candle light or lantern as she notice water like substance coming out of her private part after the intercourse which she later discover to be blood and she saw Patience washing the blood stained bedsheet. She testified that she had never ran away from home and the father never reported her to police on any occasion and insisted that the test done at the Madalla Hospital was pregnancy test and not paternity test. She further said that when she was shouting and crying, Patience who was older to her could not be seen to help her and she did not know whether the defendant was also sleeping with her but she confirm seeing the defendant sleeping with a 3years old girl. The witness testifies that after that first sexual activity the defendant had with her, she could not sit very well as her body was hot and she was sick. The testimony also included the fact that the phone she would have used to contact her parents and family was seized by the defendant and she could not run away because the defendant was always around and his working place was not far from the house; The 2nd PW Mr. Ali Uka gave his evidence in Igbo language through a sworn interpreter to the effect that he knows the defendant through his deceased tenant called nurse who use to treat his children free of charge whenever they fall sick; He said that the decease nurse tenant decided to move closer to her place of work due to challenges of transport and since he knew the defendant through the nurse, they have become family friends altogether. The defendant, the witness said, came one Sunday and requested for the PWI to help him in taking care of the two children of the deceased nurse since she had died and the elder daughter had gone for the burial. The witness turned down the request and upon persistent begging , he asked him to come back the following day and after considering how the deceased nurse have been useful to him, and his family, he reluctantly granted the request. The PW 2 testified that he use to send the elder sister to go and see to the welfare of PW 1 and on one of the days of such visit, the report given to him was not good so he decided to ask the elder sister to go and bring the PW1 back home and when she came and her appearance was not good, she was taken to the hospital where she was confirmed pregnant; the witness later took the pregnant daughter and some elders to the defendants house where he begged after owning up and requested the witness to allow him marry PW1 of which the father PW2 got angry considering the age of PW1. The witness testified that the defendant discovered that he love the girl after she was released to him and that he was going to take care of the pregnancy as one Gwari girl who was living there was 10 years old and was pregnant but that since the PW2 was afraid, he will use a nurse to abort the pregnancy. The witness testified that since he was afraid as to the life of her daughter, he decided to leave the defendant house with the elders and suddenly the defendant ran after them and warned him not to report to the police and if that was done he will deny everything and it will be come today, come tomorrow and since there is no truth in court, both parties will suffer. The matter was eventually reported to Utako Police Station, transferred to National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person and other related matters NAPTIP office and referred to the court for trial. Under cross examination by Nathaniel Nwoke Esq., the witness testified that he got married forty years ago and he gave birth to the PW1 on 5th December 1997 as the sixth child. The witness did not agree on any amount payable to him over the work PW1 will be doing in the defendants house as he had never reported the PW1 as missing to anybody or the Police. The witness insisted that it was the defendant that impregnated his daughter the PW1. The witness admitted that when PW1 was with him, she use to run errands for him but the changed physical appearance made him to take her to hospital for pregnancy test which was confirmed positive. The PW3 Mrs. Blessing Uka, the mother of PW1 gave evidence in Igbo language after a sworn interpreter. The witness identified the defendant whom she knew through a nurse who was their tenant and the nurse introduced the defendant as a brother to her and along the line, the defendant became familiar with her family and subsequently requested for the PW1 from them to help him take care of the nurse children after her demise. The witness testified that it was not the policy of her family to release any of her children outside the family but due to the way the dead nurse was good to them as a tenant, the family decided to release the PW1 to the defendant. After a visit, it was discovered that the phone bought for her daughter was being used by the defendant on the reason that the defendants phone was faulty. After another visit by the witness daughter, it was notice that the PW1 was having fever and her body appearance was changing which necessitated her recall from the defendants house for pregnancy test which was confirmed positive. The witness and the PW2 then organized the kinsmen to visit the defendant along with the PW1 to confront him on why he pregnated the daughter given to assist his sisters children. She testified that the defendant knelt down to beg them and requested to marry and take care of PW1. That the defendant decided to impregnate the PW1 because if he had come to ask for her hand in marriage the PW2 and PW3 will not accept on ground of age. The witness testified further that the defendant assured them of safe delivery of the PW1 since 9 years, 10 years and 11 years old girls are getting pregnant and becoming mothers. The witness testified to the effect that the PW1 was 12years old when she was impregnated by the defendant but was 15 years as at the time of her testimony. During cross examination, the witness testified that when she saw PW1 one on one, she was not told that the defendant impregnated her but she was told when PW1 was brought home by her sister before she was taken to the hospital for medical examination. The witness admitted that she had no other evidence to show that the defendant was responsible for the PW1 pregnancy but the defendant confessed to the kinsmen in their presence when they went to confront him in his house as she do not know any boyfriend or girlfriend of the PW1. The witness testified further that she gave birth to PW1 on 5th December, 1997 but got married in December 28 1983 and gave birth to her first child in 1984. She testified that PW1 was never declared missing neither had she any cause to search for her including the time she spent at the defendants house. The witness did not collect any money from any one before giving the PW1 to the defendant neither was she told to give evidence in this form by the Police or Lawyer but claim to be giving her testimony from the facts she knows herself. The witness gave the reason for releasing PW1 to the defendant to be based on pure sympathy for the deceased nurse and the husband of the deceased nurse even followed them to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person and other related matters (NAPTIP) office when the case was pending there. The PW4, Inspector Sola Adesola, the Investigating Police Officer in this case claims to have been an investigator for the previous 23 years and had been with National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person (NAPTIP) for upward of 8 years as an investigator; she identified the defendant; she took the defendants statement under caution and requested her to write the statement for him on the ground that he was not with his reading glasses. The statement of caution was read to him in English Language and the defendant signed. The same was repeated for the statement and the defendant signed accordingly. The statement was tendered without objection and marked as exhibits EU 01 and EU 02. During Cross Examination the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) testified that she arrested the defendant on 28th of January 2010 and released him the next day on bail and extended her investigation to the defendants neighbors where it was confirmed that it has been the nature and character of the defendant to sleep and defile young girls and also discovered that the defendants wife deserted him due to his intolerable conduct even though the defendant told her that the wife was late. The Investigating Police Officer (IPO) testified further that the defendant who lived in a room and parlour apartment accommodated the PW1 between June 2009 to December 2009 while the PW1 delivered a child around the month of March, 2010. The defendant opened his case on the 5th of December, 2013 with his son Emmanuel Ihenacho testifying as the 1st DW. He stated that eight of them lived with the defendant including the PW1 who was found loitering around with a girl after running away from her parents home and on taking her back to her parents, the PW2 and PW3 requested the defendant to accommodate the PW1 to prevent her further going about and wandering aimlessly. He testified that the defendant who goes to work by 8 am comes back 6pm daily as the house is very busy and crowded as the PW1 was treated as a sister in the defendants house. He further testified that the PW1 stayed in the house between 2-3 weeks but came into the defendants house around Easter 2009 and the deceased nurse was still in the house when PW1 came to live with them. That sometime thereafter the PW3 came to take PW1 away to her aunty’s place and within a space of one month, PW2 and PW1 came back to their house with a complaint that PW1 was pregnant and that the assistance of the defendant was needed to terminate the pregnancy of which the defendant refused and the PW2 and PW3 came the next date with police to arrest the defendant of which he followed them along with the Sabbath Pastor who blamed the PW1 for it as he had earlier seen vision about it. During cross examination, the witness testified that the mother died around the time the PW1 left at about Easter time. He further testified that his father was arrested based on the vision of the Sabbath Pastor as he did not know who bailed his father, the defendant and school was not in session when the PW1 came to their house, He testified further that the defendant who was the chief security personnel at AIDC now works at the court of Appeal at central area, Abuja. The witness said he did not make any extra judicial statement before the police. The defendant, Mr. Magnus Iheanacho testified on his own behalf and stated that he knew the PW1, PW2 and PW3 who were living with Mr. Agu and his wife the deceased nurse in 2006 and since then, all of them became family friends, He testified that on a particular evening, he saw PW1 in his house in company of 2 other girls with the complaint that the PW2 and PW3 sent her out of the house because of her waywardness. As a Good Samaritan, the defendant took her back to her parent as the parents were happy and requested the defendant to keep her for 2 to 3 weeks to prevent her going up and down and upon a family meeting and agreement, the PW1 was brought to the defendants house. The witness/defendant further testified that the PW2 came for the PW1 after 2 weeks and after another two weeks came with the report that PW1 was pregnant and requested for the defendants help to abort the pregnancy and upon the defendant refusing to assist in the abortion plan, the PW2 and PW3 got angry and the following day they invited the police to arrest him to Utako Police Station. The defendant stated that he denied the allegation before the DPO as he was beaten and tortured. He testified that the matter was resolved amicably as he was told to pay N10, 000 monthly to the PW3 and when he could not keep to the agreement, the matter was charged to court. The witness further testified that no paternity test was carried out even after the PW1 delivered the baby. The witness denied making any statement at the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person (NAPTIP) office and stated that PW1 was among the 8 persons living with him and he use to treat the PW1 as a daughter. The witness entirely denied the allegations in the charge. During cross examinations the witness testified that he had a wife and PW1 left the house before his wife of 18 years marriage died and was buried on the 21st of May 2009. He testified that, the PW1 was not related to him by blood, he was not a child minder and he owns no boarding facility neither is he a guardian counselor. He admitted not qualified in any way as a perfect choice to tame PW1. The PW1, he stated, did nothing like washing, cooking or going to the market for him throughout her stay in the house. The witness denied ever writing any undertaking, ever sleeping with the PW1, and he never wrote any confessional statement; the undertaking was however tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit EU 03. The defence counsel then closed the case for the defence and the court consequently ordered filing of written addresses; In the defendants written address dated and filed on the 11th of February 2014, the defence counsel Mrs. E. Atano after a preliminary comment formulated five issues for determination, namely: (1) Whether the accuse person had carnal knowledge of a Minor. (2) Whether its not necessary to prove the paternity of the child born to determine the guilt of the accused person. (3) Whether the purported confessional statement made by the accused person admitted should be relied on. (4) Whether the accused person employed the claimant as domestic help outside her family environment. (5) Whether the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the accused person. On issue one, Mrs. E. Atano submitted that the prosecution had not proved the issue of sexual intercourse with a minor beyond reasonable doubt as no pregnancy test result was tendered from any alleged hospital. Counsel submitted further that the presence of about seven people in the house including the DW1 makes it impossible for the crime of such nature to be committed and urge the court to so hold. On issue 2, counsel submitted that since there is no evidence of paternity of the child born by the PW1 to link the defendant with this crime or charge the doubt created by this non evidence should be resolve in favour of the defendant; counsel cited the case of Queen Vs. Abiasa 1962 All NLR 645. Counsel posited that since there is no DNA test to link the defendant as the father of the child to establish sexual intercourse, the case of the prosecution is based on suspicion and suspicious, no matter how grave cannot ground a conviction in the absence of prove beyond reasonable doubt counsel call in aid the case of Shehu Vs. State 2010 All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1841 Rt. 14. Counsel submitted that since there are nagging question which remain unanswered, the court cannot convict on suspicion as the ingredients of the offences charged in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Counsel cited the case of Akinlemibola Vs. Cop 1976 All NLR 349 at 363 Oladotun Vs. State 2010 All FWLR (Pt. 532) 1685 On issue 3, counsel urge the court to discountenance exhibits EU 01 and EU 02 which were statements obtained under duress at the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Person (NAPTIP) office and tendered in evidence while concealing the statements made voluntarily at the police station in Utako. Counsel cited the case of State Vs. Salawu 2011 18 NWLR Pt. 1279 580 SC to buttress the argument that accused who is literate should write his own statement in his own handwriting . On issue 4, Mrs. Atano submitted that the PW1, from all available evidence in this case was never an employee of the defendant and as such no salary was paid. He referred the court to the case of Okoh Vs. Uinlag 2011 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 563 On issue five, counsel adopted his submission on issues 1,2 and 3 argued above and urge the court to hold that the prosecution has failed to proof his case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused person should be discharge and acquitted. In conclusion, counsel raised a query or a poser as to why the DNA test was not conducted to ascertain the innocence or guilt of the accused person and why the defendant statement made to the police at Utako police station was not tendered at the trial. Counsel submitted that the yawning gaps in the prosecution case should not be filled or bridge by the court for them. Counsel cited the case of Ugneneyovwe Vs. State 2005 All FWLR Pt. 245 1009. In His reply the prosecutor Mrs. Ugo Ogbunude formulated a lone issue for determination by the court which is: Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. Counsel submitted and answered the lone question for determination in the affirmative as the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as all ingredrents of the offices have been proved. In respect of the first count of causing unlawful carnal knowledge, counsel submitted that from the trial and evidences given it has been established that: (a) The accused person had custody of PW1 as at the time the offence was committed (b) The accused person caused the unlawful carnal knowledge of PW1 (c) The PW1 was under the age of 18 years as at the time of the offence. Counsel referred the court to the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which he contended remain unassailable and unchallenged coupled with the confessional statement of the accused person which has remove the case from the realm of speculation to the pedestal of full criminal responsibility as the men rea and actus reus are present. Counsel referred the court to the case of Okeke Vs. State 2003 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25 at 112. In respect of the 2nd count of procuring under age under false pretence to have carnal connection with a man, counsel submitted that the three ingredients which she outline as follows have been proved. (a) That the accused person procured PW1 under false pretences (b) That PW1 was under the age of 18 years as at the time she was procured. (c) That the accused person had carnal connection with PW1. Counsel posited further that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses have clearly established and proved the above ingredients without contradiction or challenge from the defence and therefore urged the court to believe and act on them. On the third count, counsel pointed and outlined two ingredients of the offence of employing any person under the age of 18 years as a domestic help outside the persons family environment which are: (a) The accused person employed PW1 as a domestic help outside her family environment. (b) The PW1 was under 18 years of age as at the time she was employed. Counsel urge the court to rely on the prosecution witness testimony relating to the PW1 performance of domestic duties such as laundry, cooking and going to the market coupled with the accused confessional statements, while also noting that there is no family tie between the PW1 and the accused person. Counsel submitted also that the prosecution does not need the pregnancy test result to prove pregnancy of the PW1 because of the accused confessional statement which is Exhibit EU 01 and EU 02 On issue of paternity and DNA test, counsel argued that this is not an ingredient of any of the offences charged. The confessional statement, counsel argued was a voluntarily one and rightly admitted in evidence without objection and should be acted upon accordingly. Counsel called in aid the cases of Ogoala Vs. State 1991 2 NWLR PT. 175 509 at 534; Tanko Vs. State 2008 16 NWLR Pt. 1114 628; Omoju Vs. FRN 2008 FNWLR Pt. 1085. Counsel further submitted that the word ‘employ’ do not necessarily mean payment of salary but connots. ‘To make use of’ as defined in Black Law Dictionary 8th Edition 2004. Counsel urges the court to convict the defendant on all the three count charges. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any reasonable doubt or genuine doubt arising from the prosecution’s case the accused should be convicted as there is a very high degree of probability that he committed the offences charged. Counsel cited Alake Vs. State 1991 NWLR (Pt. 205) 567; counsel further urged the court to act on the exhibits which was resiled by the accused during cross examination though already admitted in evidence. She cited the case of Akpan Vs. State 2003 15 NWLR Pt. 737 P. 745 at 762 Egbogbonome Vs. State 1993 7 NWLR (Pt. 438) 530. Counsel finally urged the court to regard the defence testimonies as tissues of lies, after-thought and calculated to deceive the court, regard the prosecutions witness as unassailable and convict the accused person. I have carefully considered all the issues raised by the respective counsel in their submissions arising out of the trial in this case. The defendant Mr. Magnus Iheanacho was charged before the Federal High Court on the 19th of May 2010 on a lone count charge of procuring Eucharia Uka female of 12 years old under false pretences to have carnal connection with her, an offence punishable under section 18 (b) of the trafficking in persons (prohibition) law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as amended. By reason of jurisdiction, this matter was transferred to this court from the Federal High Court by an order of His lordship justice A. Abdukafarati on the 23rd of May 2013. By an amended charge, the prosecution filed a three count charge on the 17th of September 2013, which forms the basis of the trial and the present judgment. For the purpose of clarity and simplicity, I adopt the sole issue for determination set out by the prosecution in this case which is as follows: Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction? In an attempt to determine this issue it must first of all be establish that in all prosecution of criminal cases the burden on the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. See Alhaji Salisu Babuga Vs. State 1996 7 NWLR (Pt. 460) 279. It is also settled law that the prosecution is not required to call every available piece of evidence to prove its case, it is enough if sufficient evidence is called to discharge the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt See Alonge Vs. Police 1959 4 FSC 203. The prosecution will readily achieve this result by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the charge or charges are proved by evidence. See the case of Sabastin Yongo and Another Vs. Cop 1992 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36; 1992 4 SCNJ 113. In the case of Emeka Vs. the State (2001) 88 LRCN 2343 the Supreme Court has made it very simple by outlining the various way of proving a crime. These are: (1) By direct evidence (2) By circumstantial evidence (3) Through confessional statements From the available evidence during trial, the prosecution called four witnesses in trying to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt. The only direct evidence is the PW1, the alleged victim of the unlawful carnal knowledge who gave a vivid account of the alleged ordeal she suffered from the hands of the defendant. The PW2 and PW3 who are the parents of PW1 gave unmistaken evidence about the circumstances leading to the facts of this case including most importantly the age of the PW1 and how PW1 was procured from them by the defendant. The PW 4 who is the police officer also corroborated the testimonies of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 from her investigations. It must be noted that for circumstantial evidence to be relied upon, it must be cogent, compelling and conclusive. I am sufficiently guided by this. It is also in evidence in this case, the alleged confessional statements of the accused/defendant which are exhibits EU 01 and EU 02. From the above scenario and from the decision in Emeka Vs. State, (supra) it appears to me that the three methods of proving a crime outlined and enunciated by the Supreme Court are present in this case even though the third element which is the allege confessions appears weightier; count one of the charge borders on causing unlawful carnal knowledge of PW1. The ingredients of this offence under Sec 13 (1) of Trafficking in persons prohibiting law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as amended includes (1) Custody, charge or care of any person (2) The person must be under 18 years of age (3) The defendant seduce or have carnal knowledge of such an underage unlawfully or indecently assaulted such a minor The evidences of PW1, PW2 and PW3 establishes without any iota of contradiction that the defendant came to their residence at tomatoes junction Dei Dei, Abuja to request for the PW1 from her parents the PW2 and PW 3 to take care of the two children namely Chisom and Miracle alias Mimi who are orphans occasioned by the demised of their mother called “nurse” who was a former tenant of PW 2 and PW 3. PW2 and PW 3, who are parents of the PW1 also gave an undisputable evidence of when they got married and the day, month and year of birth of the PW 1. The PW 1 narrated in details the sexual ordeal she was subjected to by the defendant and the kind of household chores she was also performing while under the control, care and custody of the defendant. In the absence of any contrary evidence to cast substantial doubt on this piece of evidence, I hold that this count is established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. On count 2 which borders on procuring under false pretence any person under the age of 18 years to have carnal connection with a man within and outside Nigeria, the following ingredients are critical and crucial (1) There must be a procurement of a person (2) The procurement must be with fraud, deceit or under false pretence. (3) The victim of the procurement must be under 18 years. (4) There must be carnal connection in form of defilement. (5) The carnal defilement must be in connection with a man (not a woman) A careful look at the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 has established the following facts PW1 says in her testimony as follows: “………… that he knew I was pregnant and that my father should not worry. That he wanted to marry me but my father will say I am very young….” PW2 says: “………. that Magnus then told me that it was after they gave him the daughter he discovered that he loved her and that if he requested for her in marriage they will say that he was old in age ….” PW3 says in her testimony: “ ………………… that he loves Eucharia (PW1) and her character and that if he Magnus come to ask them of Eucharia in marriage that they will not accept …..” PW4: “my investigation took me to visit some neighbor in defendants community where it was discovered that it has been his nature and character to be sleeping and defiling younger girls” This evidence was given by PW4 Investigating Officer of Police (IPO) in response to the question posed to her during cross examination by the defence counsel. From the portion of the testimonies highlighted above, the prosecution has proven his case on count two as well. The defendant has abuse the PW1 with impunity. This sexual abuse is a clear case of child abuse which the law has criminalized by the combined effect of section 254 ( c) (1) (i) and (5) of the constitution as amended. On count three of the charge, the defendant was alleged of employing the PW1 who was 12years old as a domestic help outside her family environment. A careful reading of section 22 (1)(d) of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act 2003 as amended reveals the following ingredients. (1) The defendant must have engaged the PW1 in unlawful forced or compulsory labour contrary to section 34 (1)(C)of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. (2) The PW1 must be a child within the meaning of the law. (3) PW1 must have been engage in domestic forced labour. The compulsory or forced labour must be outside the family environment of the PW1. All these ingredients are not mutually exclusive; they must all co-exit to ground a conviction as any missing one means it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. To me, the mischief the law intends to cure is to discourage children from engaging in any kind of employment; while in their formative years, they should devote their time to education or acquiring skills. Moreover, under no circumstances, should any one use them as cheap labour to enrich himself, his family or his community. Payment of wages in labour jurisprudence is central all over the world. Throughout the trial, there is no evidence of payment made to anybody either by the defendant or the father of the orphan children who lost their mother Mrs. Inabenyi. This fact is very clear from the testimonies of the PW1, PW2 and PW3. Moreover, I cannot see how a young girl of 12years staying with a family friend with the express consent of her parent should not engage in domestic chores such as washing plates, laundry, cooking or going to the market. I think engaging in such things should be considered a proper orientation for a girl child who will be an eventual mother and wife, though in a proper way. Consequently, I see no proof by the prosecution in this third count. Let me now look at the issue of confessional statement of the defendant as reflected in Exhibit EU 01, EU 02, and EU 03. It should be noted that when Exhibit EU 01 and EU 02 were tendered by the prosecution, the defendant never objected to it. If they had done so, on ground of duress or involuntariness, the court could have ordered trial within trial to determine their voluntariness or otherwise. Consequently the submission of the defence counsel on admission of the defendant statement is not potent enough worthy of any further consideration. A confessional statement unequivocally confesses to the commission of the offences charge. See the case of Mogaji Vs. Nigeria Army 2008 8 NWLR Pt. 1089 338. This is exactly what the defendant did in this case. By section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011, the law provided as follows: “A confession is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime” Exhibit EU 01 and Exhibit EU 02 has two places each where the defendant appended his signature. Exhibit EU 03 which contains the undertaken written by defendant has only one place where he appended his signature; one do not need the assistance of a handwriting expert to dictate and come to the irresistible conclusion that the five signatures are all consistent. The background story of the defendant’s biography adorning the first page of Exhibit EU 01 cannot be manufactured or concocted by the Investigating Police Officer (IPO), who is not related to him at all. In the letter of undertaking which is exhibit EU 03, the defendant says: “I Iheanacho Magnus ‘M’ of Abuja International Diagnostic Centre “AIDC” Quarters Utako undertake and agreed that I am going to take responsibility for Eucharia Ani whom I got her pregnant until she delivered, I will also cater for the baby …” The defence counsel Mrs. E. Atano submitted that there was no paternity test conducted, neither was pregnancy test result tendered in court to link the defendant with the crime; I completely disagreed with the submission, because the defendant has unequivocally admitted and confessed to the crime. What other proof do we need? The issue at hand do not border on paternity dispute to warrant the court inquiring into DNA investigation which of course the court has no jurisdiction. The defence also made a heavy weather of the prosecution not tendering the defendant statement made at the Utako Police Station. A confessional statement, so long as it is free and voluntary, direct, positive and properly proved is enough to sustain a conviction see Bature Vs State 1994 I NWLR (Pt. 320) 267. Can it be said that Exhibits EU 01, EU 02 and EU 03 in this case are voluntary, direct, positive and properly proved? The answer is certainly in the affirmative; the defence is suppose to request for any document which they perceive are in possession of the prosecution that may be of assistance to their case and where such is not done in our adversatorial system of adjudication, the court is certainly not in the position to descend into the arena. In any case, it is also trite law that the prosecution is not bound to tender all documents nor call all witnesses in a trial. During cross examination the accused defendant tried to retract his confessional statement; Assuming without conceding that the defendant retracted his confessional statement in this case, it is the law that to make the confessional statement plausible, reliable and dependable, particularly where it has been retracted, it is highly desireable that it should have been tested against other ascertained and established facts and circumstances no matter how slight which are proved and consistent therewith, showing that it is true and without leaving lingering doubts whatsoever. The confessional statement must also relate to the particular charge preferred before the court. See the cases of Madjemu Vs. State 2001 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 349; Hassan Vs State 2001 15 NWLR (Pt. 735) 184 A comparism of the confessional statements of the defendant which is Exhibit EU 01 and EU 02 in this case reveals a similarity with the evidence of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 as earlier noted and highlighted. There is no lingering doubt whatsoever that the defendant voluntarily confessed as written in his statement to the Police. On the issue of corroboration, my take is that it is not in all cases that confessions must be corroborated. It is settled law that a confessional statement made by an accused/defendant and properly admitted in law as in this case is the best guide to the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone the court can convict. In this case, I have sought and obtained external facts from other witnesses and the surrounding circumstances corroborating the statement of the defendant. I am fortified in this position by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Olabode Vs. State 2009 11 NWLR (Pt 11 52) 254 In testing the truth or otherwise of extra judicial confessional statement, the court should look outside for any corroborative statement or evidence which makes it possible that the confession is true; In carrying out the test, the court will consider issue such as; (1) Whether there is anything outside the confessional statement to show that it is true. (2) Whether the confessional statement is itself corroborated (3) Whether the statement of fact made in the confessional statement so far as can be tested is true. (4) Whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence (5) Whether given the surrounding circumstances, the confession of the accused was possible. See the cases of Obisi Vs. Chief of Naval Staff 2002 NWLR Pt.751 400; Ikpasa Vs. Bendel State 1981 9 Sc 7. The evidence given so far has swallowed all the variables in the matter. Consequently I hold that the alleged confessional corroborative statement is valid and potent. In view of all I have said so far I found the defendant guilty of Count 1 and Two and discharge and acquitted on Count 3. He is therefore convicted accordingly on Counts 1 and 2 as charged. Allocutus:- Atano: The defendant is a first offender; he has lost his wife and he is the bread winner of the family; He has three children between 17 years to 25 years of age. I pray the court to temper justice with mercy. Mrs. Ogbunude: There is no previous conviction known to me; Court: I have carefully and soberly listened and considered the allocutus of the defence counsel. I owe a duty in this circumstance and in view of the rampant nature of child abuse and sexual offences in the society today to assist the defendant toward reforming him particularly his poor sexual orientation; justice is not only to the victim, but to the defendant and the society. The victim, i.e the PW1 has been subjected to psychological and various social tortures. I have also seen clearly that the victim has been bruised, brutalized, hurt and abused mentally and physically as a result of the sexual assault on her by the defendant. In that wise, since the offence committed by the defendant carries 10years jail term on each count, I have taken into account the fact that the defendant is a first offender coupled with the fact he has been in detention for some time now. He is hereby sentence to two years imprisonment each on count one and on count two without option of fine. The sentences are to run concurrently. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP.) Judge