Inferential Proof of the Offence of Conspiracy

On 12th December 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held a hearing in Abuja regarding the case SC/617C/2019. The Appellant, Kayode Adeyoju, was charged alongside Olasunkanmi Bakare for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery under the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.

The Appellant and Bakare allegedly robbed Ayo Banjo of his property, including a 2009 Hyundai Sonata Elegance car, on 4th April 2009 in Akute, Ota Judicial Division. They were armed with guns and other offensive weapons during the robbery. At trial, six witnesses and documentary exhibits, including the Appellant's confessional statements, were presented.

The Appellant testified at his own trial, denying the charges and retracting the exhibits. The High Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death. The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal but was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The main issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal correctly held that the Respondent proved armed robbery and conspiracy against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant's counsel argued that the confessional statements, though retractable, needed corroborating evidence. They also claimed that the failure to present the guns used in the robbery was detrimental to the Respondent's case.

The Respondent's counsel argued that the testimonies of the witnesses and the confessions proved armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt. They also stated that the evidence was sufficient to make the truth of the confessions probable and sufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt. They contended that the guns were not mandatory to present and that the prosecution's witnesses should not have been cross-examined on the material facts.

The Supreme Court decided the issue of conspiracy first, following a previous ruling in Obiakor v State (2002). They held that conspiracy can be proved through inferences drawn from actions and statements of the conspirators, given its secretive nature. The Court affirmed the conviction of the Appellant for armed robbery, maintaining that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.