He was charged on a count of attempt to commit an offence, contrary to Section 338 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025. He pleaded guilty when the charge sheet was read to him.
After the prosecuting officer, 6472 A. Badjie, had read the facts to the court, and accepted by the convict, he begged the court: “I am pleading with the court for forgiveness. What I took did not belong to me. Somebody gave it to me. I beg for mercy because human beings are not perfect.”
In reading her judgement, the presiding magistrate stated that she had carefully considered the charge, the facts presented by the prosecution, the plea of guilt by the convict and his admission that the facts as narrated by the prosecution were true and correct.
She cited Sections 337 and 338 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, to support her judgement. She adduced that the facts admitted by the convict were clear. She further declared: “He came into possession of documents and bank cards belonging to another person. Rather than taking steps to return those documents to their rightful owner or surrendering them to the police or the appropriate authority, he proceeded to an Access Bank outlet and attempted to use the card to access the account. When the ATM transaction failed, he entered the banking hall and sought the assistance of a teller to facilitate the withdrawal.”
She went on to say that more significantly, when he was questioned by bank officials, he represented that he had been authorised by the account holder, Kebba Banja, to access the account. The account holder, when contacted by the bank, denied giving such authority and informed the bank that his documents, including his bank card, had lost. The conduct of the convict, stated the magistrate, went beyond mere possession of the documents. “He took positive steps towards accessing the account and obtaining money which did not belong to him. The intended offence was, however, not completed, as the bank officials detected the irregularity and he was prevented from obtaining any funds,” she said.
She further asserted that in determining the appropriate sentence, she had taken into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances arising from the facts before the court. On the other hand, she added, the conduct of the convict was serious. “Banking transactions depend fundamentally on trust and the protection of personal and financial information. The deliberate attempt to use another person’s bank card and identity documents to access an account is a conduct which must attract an appropriate sentence, both as punishment and as deterrence to others,” she declared.
She stated that the court also noted that the convict did not merely retain the documents after finding or receiving them. She added that he proceeded to use one of the bank cards in an attempt to obtain access to the account. She asserted that he further gave information to the bank which was subsequently found to be false. On the other hand, she went on, the court must not lose sight of the fact that this was an attempt. She adduced that the convict did not succeed in obtaining any money. She said that no financial loss to the account holder had been established from the facts before the court. She said the documents were recovered, and the convict pleaded guilty and admitted the prosecution’s facts without requiring a full trial. She stated that this had saved the time and resources of the court, and it was a factor she considered in his favour.
Still delivering the judgement, she said that she had also considered the statutory sentencing framework, citing Section 38 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025.
“Having weighed all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is appropriate. A mere fine, in my considered view, would not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the conduct or serve the necessary deterrent purpose. At the same time, the court is mindful that the offence was not completed and that the convict pleaded guilty. Accordingly, I sentence the convict, Idrissa Kebbeh, to 6 months’ imprisonment. This sentence is imposed not only as punishment but also to serve the objectives of deterrence, protection of the public, preservation of the integrity of banking transactions and the rehabilitation of the offender,” she concluded.
