Magistrate Bamisile rules that evidence established an accident but failed to prove the defendant drove recklessly, dangerously or without due care
By A1 NEWS International
ABUJA — September 10, 2026
Court discharges and acquits Setraco driver after prosecution fails to establish reckless driving
A Wuse Zone 2 Senior Magistrates’ Court in the Federal Capital Territory has discharged and acquitted a Setraco driver who was standing trial over allegations of reckless, dangerous, careless and inconsiderate driving, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
In a judgment delivered by Magistrate Olumide Bamisile, the court found that although the prosecution established that a road traffic accident occurred involving the defendant’s Toyota Hilux and the vehicle of the nominal complainant, it failed to establish that the defendant was driving negligently, recklessly, dangerously or without due care at the time of the incident.
The defendant had faced charges under Sections 28 and 29 of the Road Traffic Act, Cap. 548, relating to reckless or dangerous driving and careless and inconsiderate driving.
The court consequently invoked Section 309 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, to discharge and acquit the defendant.
How the accident allegedly occurred
The prosecution called three witnesses in an attempt to establish its case.
The nominal complainant, Idawonjo Johnbosco, who testified as PW1, told the court that the accident occurred on September 6, 2024, while he was driving his son to school.
According to his testimony, he was descending from the GIN overhead bridge towards the Gwagwalada area of the FCT when he suddenly heard a sound from the rear of his vehicle.
He said he subsequently lost consciousness and, after regaining consciousness, found himself in a bus.
The complainant told the court that a Toyota Hilux belonging to Setraco was located on the other side of the road and that the vehicle, allegedly driven by the defendant, had collided with his car.
He further testified that the impact damaged his vehicle from the trunk area towards the rear seat and severely damaged the driver’s door.
According to him, the driver’s door had to be forced open by passers-by before he could get out of the vehicle.
PW1 also told the court that his son and two other commuters were in the rear of his vehicle when the accident occurred.
Defence witnesses gave a different account
The defence, however, presented a substantially different account of how the collision occurred.
The evidence of the defence witnesses, particularly DW1 and DW3, was that the complainant’s vehicle had overtaken the defendant’s vehicle and subsequently stopped abruptly to pick up passengers.
According to the defence account, it was this manoeuvre that caused the collision.
Magistrate Bamisile noted that the prosecution did not effectively rebut this version of events.
The court observed that although PW1 testified that other persons were inside his vehicle when the accident occurred, none of those alleged occupants was called to testify and corroborate his account or contradict the evidence presented by the defence witnesses.
Court identifies evidential gap in prosecution’s case
The absence of evidence from the alleged occupants became significant in the court’s assessment of the competing accounts.
The magistrate held that DW1 and DW3 were direct eyewitnesses who were in the defendant’s vehicle and that their account of the accident was not successfully countered by the prosecution.
The court noted that where evidence has been presented on a material point and the opposing party fails to offer evidence in rebuttal, such failure may weaken the contention that the evidence should not be believed.
In this case, the court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to displace the defence witnesses’ account that the complainant’s vehicle had overtaken the Setraco vehicle before stopping abruptly.
No evidence of speeding or reckless driving
A central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established that the defendant was speeding or driving recklessly at the time of the accident.
Magistrate Bamisile found that it had not.
The judgment stated that there was no evidence before the court demonstrating that the defendant was over-speeding or operating the vehicle in a reckless manner that caused the collision.
The court further observed that evidence from an independent eyewitness might have assisted the prosecution in establishing what actually happened immediately before the crash, but no such independent witness was presented.
The distinction was critical to the case.
According to the judgment, establishing that two vehicles were involved in an accident does not, by itself, establish the criminal liability of one of the drivers.
Defendant’s statement did not amount to confession
The court also examined an extrajudicial statement relied upon by the prosecution, identified in the judgment as Exhibit CMJ4.
According to the magistrate, the statement amounted to an admission by the defendant that he hit the complainant’s vehicle.
However, the court found no part of the statement in which the defendant admitted that he was negligent, careless, speeding or driving recklessly.
The magistrate therefore rejected the prosecution’s apparent reliance on the statement as a confession to the offences charged.
The court held that Exhibit CMJ4 established, at most, an admission that the accident occurred and did not constitute a confession to reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving.
Accident alone does not establish criminal guilt
The judgment drew a clear distinction between the occurrence of an accident and proof of criminal negligence.
The court held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that an accident occurred between the vehicles of the nominal complainant and the defendant.
However, it had not gone further to establish the circumstances necessary to prove the defendant’s criminal culpability.
The magistrate stated that there was no evidence before the court proving that the defendant drove negligently or recklessly without due care.
The court consequently found that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the defendant operated the vehicle in a reckless and dangerous manner that caused the accident.
Prosecution must prove every essential element
In reaching the decision, Magistrate Bamisile reiterated the fundamental criminal law principle that the burden rests on the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
The court stressed that because it was the prosecution that brought the defendant before the court, it was incumbent upon it to provide sufficient evidence capable of satisfying the court that the offences had been committed by the defendant.
The magistrate found that this burden had not been discharged in the case before the court.
Defendant found not guilty
After evaluating the evidence presented by both sides, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The magistrate therefore found the defendant not guilty.
The court subsequently ordered that the defendant be discharged and acquitted pursuant to Section 309 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
The judgment underscores an important distinction in criminal road-traffic cases: the mere occurrence of an accident does not automatically establish reckless or dangerous driving.
For a conviction on such charges, the prosecution must present credible evidence linking the defendant’s conduct to the alleged offence and establish the essential elements beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the court found that the prosecution proved that a collision occurred but failed to prove that the Setraco driver caused it through reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving.
Leave a Reply