Public Prosecutor v Adili Chibuike Ejike

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu SJ
• Judgment Date: 11 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 106
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 17 of 2015
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 04 June 2019
• Hearing Date: 29 October 2015,11 June 2015,04 June 2015,02 November 2015,11 April 2017,09 June 2015,03 June 2015,02 December 2016,30 June 2016,28 October 2015,05 June 2015,10 June 2015,12 June 2015,08 June 2015,16 June 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hay Hung Chun and Sarah Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mohamed Muzammil Bin Mohamed (Muzammil & Company) & Mr Lam Wai Seng (Lam W.S. & Co.)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Illegally importing controlled drugs
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 106

Kan Ting Chiu SJ:

The charge against Adili Chibuike Ejike (“the Accused”) was that he

on the 13th day of November 2011, at or about 8.25 p.m., at Changi Airport Terminal 3, Arrival Hall, Singapore, did import into Singapore a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev. Ed)(“the MDA”), to wit, two (2) packets containing crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 1,961 grams of methamphetamine, without authorisation under the MDA (of) the Regulations made thereunder, and [he had] thereby committed an offence under section 7 and punishable under section 33 of the MDA, or [he] may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the MDA.

The Accused is a citizen of Nigeria, 28 years 10 months of age at the time of the alleged offence. He had arrived at Terminal 3 of Changi Airport Singapore from Lagos, Nigeria via Doha, Qatar. He had an eventful time when he tried to leave the airport. He was questioned by immigration officers, but had satisfied them that he was in Singapore on business with sufficient funds for his stay here and that he had a valid departure air ticket. As he continued on his way, the luggage bag¹ (which can also be called a suitcase) he was carrying was put through X-ray examination and the contents were checked, but nothing was found. When the luggage bag was examined further and the inner lining of one side of the bag was cut, a packet wrapped in tape was discovered. Another similar packet was recovered when the inner lining on the opposite side of the bag was cut. The Accused was placed under arrest and officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) arrived and took over investigations. The contents of the two packets were analysed and found to be the methamphetamine on which the charge against the Accused is based.

At the trial, the Accused did not dispute the fact that he was in physical possession of the luggage bag and the methamphetamine. It was also common ground between the prosecution and the defence that the Accused was presumed to have knowledge of the methamphetamine under s 18(2) MDA. The principle issue with regard to his innocence or guilt was whether he had rebutted the presumption.

The Accused’s statements

After his arrest, a series of statements was recorded from the Accused which were admitted in evidence without objection from him. The first statement was a cautioned statement² recorded on 14 November 2011, followed by six investigation statements³ recorded between 16 November 2011 and 22 February 2013. The Accused had elected to make all the statements in his native language Ibo, and an Ibo interpreter was present to assist the Accused and the recording officer during the recording of each statement.

In the cautioned statement the Accused stated

Somebody gave those substance to me. I did not know what it was. If I knew what they were, I would not have accepted to carry those things.

(It is noteworthy that the Accused did not say that he did not know that some “substance” was concealed in the bag, and had only said that he did not know what the substance was, and would not have carried them if he knew what they were).

In the investigation statements, he narrated his background and the circumstances in which he became involved with the drugs that he was carrying. He recounted that he had worked for a dealer in fan belts in his home town Oraifite and the dealer gave him some money in 2010 for him to carry on in the same business on his own. However, the Accused’s business failed and he became unemployed. In August 2011, he called his friend Chiedu Onwuka (“Chiedu”) for financial help for his business. He was able to reach Chiedu with the help of another friend Izuchukwu Ibekwe (“Izuchukwu”). Chiedu promised to give the Accused 200,000 to 300,000 nairas (a naira is a unit of Nigerian currency, and in 2011 the exchange rate was approximately 151 nairas to US$1) but told him to be patient and to call again in October 2011. When the Accused called Chiedu in October 2011, Chiedu asked him to go to Lagos. Before he went to Lagos, Chiedu went to his village and collected his passport which was issued to him in April 2011, although he claimed he had no thought of travelling out of Nigeria⁴ at that time. Before the meeting in October 2011, Chiedu collected the Accused’s passport and said that he wanted to do something with it to help the Accused.

In October 2011, the Accused went to Lagos and met up with Chiedu. In November 2011, the Accused and Chiedu met up with Izuchukwu, and Izuchukwu told the Accused that the Accused will be travelling to Singapore with a luggage bag which he was to pass to somebody in Singapore. The Accused agreed to do that in order to receive the promised help from Chiedu.

On 12 November 2011, the Accused met up with Izuchukwu who gave him his travel documents including his passport, air ticket, hotel booking and US$4,900 together with a luggage bag⁵ as well as two name cards in his name and a vaccination certificate.⁶ The US$4,900 was allegedly given to him to cover his food, travelling, hotel and other expenses,⁷ with any unspent balance to be returned to Chiedu,⁸ and he was not instructed by Chiedu or Izuchukwu to pass any money to anybody.⁹ The Accused was told that once he had cleared immigration controls in Singapore, he was to get a taxi and instruct the driver to take him to the hotel, and someone would come and collect the luggage bag from him at the hotel.¹⁰ As for the contents of the luggage bag, he added that

I did not pack the luggage myself. I also did not know what was inside the luggage bag. I had never thought of what would be inside the luggage bag”.¹¹

[emphasis added]

He described his relationship with Chiedu and Izuchukwu as follows: 12. I knew Chiedu from childhood. Both of us stayed in the same hometown, Oraifite. I knew him very well. I did not trust Chiedu completely. If I had a girlfriend, I would not leave my girlfriend alone with Chiedu. If I own a business, I would not let Chiedu handle my business. I did not trust Chiedu completely because Chiedu is an aggressive person. He is the type of person who will fight with me to snatch my things. I would consider Chiedu as an acquaintance of mine. I knew him since childhood and stayed in the same hometown. However, I only knew him because we stayed in the same hometown. We are not considered as very good friends. We are also not related or in any relationship. 13. I knew Izuchukwu from childhood too. We stayed in the same hometown too. I also did not trust Izuchukwu completely. Izuchukwu is considered quieter as compared to Chiedu. I meant to say that Izuchukwu is less aggressive than Chiedu. I considered Izuchukwu as an acquaintance of mine too. We stayed in the same hometown. We see each other but we are not really good friends and we are not related or in any kind of relationship… 14. Chiedu and Izuchukwu stayed in Lagos. Sometimes, they would travel back to the village. I intend to get some money from Chiedu or Izuchukwu since both of them are well-to-do. That is why I spoke to them about my problem.¹²

He also elaborated on the agreement for him to deliver the luggage bag to Singapore: 20. When I took over the luggage from Izuchukwu on 12th November 2011, I did not ask Izuchukwu what was inside the luggage. I did not ask Izuchukwu what was inside the luggage because it did not concern me. I was already told before that I had to carry a luggage into Singapore. I did not ask him because I did not believe that it was necessary. In addition, I had instructions given to me by Izuchukwu to deliver the luggage to Singapore …. Since I needed help from Izuchukwu or Chiedu, I believed that by doing this delivery of a luggage to Singapore, the help from Izuchukwu or Chiedu would arrive. Since I asked Izuchukwu or Chiedu for help, I had to obey the instructions given by Izuchukwu to deliver the luggage to Singapore. The help I referred to here in the N200,000 to N300,000 Naira which Chiedu promised to give me when I first contacted him.¹³

He then went on his way to deliver the luggage bag in Singapore. He did not check its contents in Lagos, Doha or Singapore because he did not want to and had no opportunity to do so. He only came to know about the drugs when the hidden packets were discovered and tested in Singapore and he was told that they contained drugs. Then, in his words¹⁴

… I started to cry. The officers told me not to cry …

(It is noteworthy that his reaction upon being told about the drugs was to cry; he did not say that he was surprised, and he did not inform the officers that he was unaware of the concealed packages and did not know that they were drugs).

In the course of giving his evidence, the Accused had sought to explain some inconsistencies by suggesting that the statements did not reflect accurately or completely what he had said.¹⁵ The interpreters for the statements were called as witnesses at the trial. Mr Uchenna Francis Ogakwu (“Mr Ogakwu”) was the interpreter for the cautioned statement. When defence counsel Mr Muzammil asked him for his observations during the recording of the statement, his response was that the Accused had no problem with what was interpreted to him in Ibo, but he had an extreme case of stammering, and would take a long time to speak.¹⁶ Mr Ogakwu did not note any weak power of comprehension on the part of the Accused.¹⁷

Mr Onwuakpa Anthony Obiora (“Mr Obiora”) acted as the interpreter in the recording of the investigation statements. He remembered that the Accused stammered badly. When he was questioned by defence counsel Mr Muzammil, he said that he had difficulty getting information from the Accused because of the stammering,¹⁸ and the Accused was slow in understanding questions put to him. Mr Obiora rated the Accused’s power of comprehension at 4...