Ngoforo Ebube Gospel v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Ngoforo Ebube Gospel (Nigeria)

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• The appellant and a co-accused were jointly charged with trafficking 149.4 grams of cocaine under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
• At the close of the prosecution's case, the High Court found a prima facie case against the appellant but acquitted the co-accused due to insufficient identification evidence linking him to the drugs.
• The High Court subsequently convicted the appellant, finding that he had custody and control of the drugs, and invoked the presumption of knowledge under section 37(d) of the DDA, along with an inference of trafficking based on the quantity.

• Whether the appellant was denied a fair trial due to the acquittal of the co-accused at the close of the prosecution's case, thereby prejudicing the appellant's ability to advance his defence.
• Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate and give due consideration to material aspects of the defence, including the co-accused's sworn statement, the appellant's cautioned statement, and the testimony of a defence witness.
• Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's defence that he was merely a momentary carrier without knowledge of the drugs.

• The Court of Appeal found that the High Court's acquittal of the co-accused was based on a misapprehension of evidence and speculative reasoning, which deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to establish the co-accused as the principal actor.
• The Court held that the High Court failed to conduct a maximum evaluation of the defence evidence, specifically overlooking the exculpatory sworn statement of the co-accused, the appellant's consistent cautioned statement, and the testimony of a defence witness.
• The Court concluded that the High Court did not adequately consider circumstances consistent with the appellant's defence of lack of knowledge, which were capable of rebutting the presumption under section 37(d) of the DDA or raising a reasonable doubt.
• The cumulative effect of these errors occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, rendering the conviction unsafe; thus, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.