LSP146: Essentials of Kidnapping

Good morning, readers. This week, we will discuss the essential elements of the crime of kidnapping and when the offense is considered complete, using the case of Lucky v. State (2024) LPELR-61783(SC) as a guide. Kidnapping is a serious crime with significant impacts on both victims and society.

In the case under review, on the evening of October 9, 2012, Alhaja Muibat Salaam was driving home with her daughter after closing her shop when she noticed another Honda Accord trailing her. Upon reaching Oke-Oye after Union Church, Ejigbo, she realized the trailing car was trying to overtake her. Acting quickly, she parked her car and attempted to flee on foot. However, the occupants of the trailing car chased her, captured her, and bundled her into their vehicle before driving into the bush.

The kidnappers, including the appellant, demanded a ransom of N200,000,000.00 from her husband. Fortunately, Alhaja was rescued on the fifth day by a combined effort of local vigilantes and the police. During her ordeal, she identified the appellant as one of her captors, who was later apprehended in the bush and handed over to the authorities.

The appellant and five others were arraigned before the High Court of Osun State on charges of conspiracy, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of firearms. Except for one individual who was struck from the charge, the appellant and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced to 7 years for conspiracy, 10 years for kidnapping, and 10 years for unlawful possession of firearms, with the sentences running concurrently.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the conviction and sentence. Further appeals to the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower courts’ judgments.

The court, relying on past precedent such as  Okashetu v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1534) 126; Ewugbav. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 262; Afolabi v State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1371) 292, stated that for a conviction of kidnapping, the prosecution must establish certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• the victim was seized and taken away by the accused.
• the victim was taken away against their consent.
•the victim was taken away without any lawful excuse.

It is noteworthy that the offence of kidnapping is complete when the victim is carried away against his or her wish. Ewugba v. State (2017) LPELR-43833(SC). Here,  the prosecution presented clear evidence showing that the victim was forcibly taken against her will and detained in the bush. The absence of a lawful excuse for her abduction further solidified the case against the kidnappers.

It’s important to note that in cases involving kidnapping, issues of conspiracy and identification parades are often raised and considered. Kidnapping cases frequently involve conspiracy, where several individuals work together to carry out the crime. This collaborative nature of kidnapping makes it essential to accurately identify everyone involved. In Nigeria, identification parades are commonly used to ensure that the correct suspects are apprehended and prosecuted. These parades allow witnesses or victims to identify the perpetrators from a lineup, helping to confirm the identities of those responsible for the crime.

In the case of Alufohai v. The State (2015) 3 NWLR (1445) 172, the Supreme Court explained that an identification parade is necessary only when there is doubt about the victim’s ability to recognize the suspect or when the suspect’s identity is disputed. However, if there is certainty about the perpetrator’s identity, an identification parade is not required.

For example, in this case where the counsel for the appellant raised the issue of identification, it was noted that the victim, referred to as PW2, spent four days with the appellant and other co-defendants while held in captivity in the bush. During her rescue by the vigilante group and the Nigerian Police Force, the appellant was arrested at the crime scene. This provided ample time for PW2 to become familiar with the identity of her kidnappers, making the need for an identification parade unnecessary.  The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of an identification parade is to ensure that no mistakes are made in identifying the accused. Given the circumstances and the time PW2 spent with her kidnappers, she could clearly identify the appellant, rendering the issue of mistaken identity raised by the appellant an afterthought and immaterial. Both lower courts were correct in dismissing this argument.

In conclusion, kidnapping is a greivous crime with significant consequences for victims and society. The collaborative nature of kidnapping often involves multiple individuals, making accurate identification crucial. While identification parades are typically used to ensure correct identification, they are not necessary when the victim can clearly recognize the perpetrator.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.