The term ‘armed robbery’ is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition as robbery committed by a person carrying a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the weapon is revealed or used. In Eke v State (2011) LPELR-1133(SC), the supreme court defined armed robbery as the act of stealing with violence used or threatened. Armed robbery is different from robbery because the former involves the use of some specific weapons as provided by the law.
As held in Okpulor vs. State (1990) NWLR Part 164, the three elements of the offence of armed robbery are: (a) that there was a robbery or a series of robberies; (b) each robbery was an armed robbery; and (c) that the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
The crux of this week’s article is to answer the question of when can a person be deemed to have committed /participated in an armed robbery.
The principle of law is that where it is established by the prosecution that an accused was among the robbers and they were armed with offensive weapons, he is guilty of armed robbery. Hence, it is immaterial that the accused did not carry any weapon. The mere presence of the accused with others, armed with offensive weapons even if only one was armed with an offensive weapon, is enough to find him guilty of the offence.
So, in Mohammed v State (2022) LPELR-57830(SC), the supreme court held that: “the fact that the appellant denies wielding the knife does not absolve him from the guilt of the offence. It is in fact not necessary to prove that an accused was armed. It will suffice if it is shown that he is a member of an armed gang.“
In conclusion, in proving the last ingredient of the offence of armed robbery, the law is that any member of the gang if armed means it is an armed robbery. In fact, the accused may not necessarily be the one armed.
Thank you for reading. See you in June. We would be taking a break for now due to examination preparation.