No Case Submission

The appellant and one other person, were arraigned before the trial Court on a fifty four count charge, vide an Amended charge dated 4th of June, 2013 but filed on 7th June, 2013 (charge No.FHC/L/4420/2011). The appellant pleaded not guilty to all the counts. In presenting its case at the trial, the respondent as prosecutor, called two witnesses and tendered Exhibits P1- P6 and, closed its case. The appellant, “as accused person at the trial Court, thereafter made a “No Case Submission” urging the trial Court to discharge and acquit him as the prosecution/respondent failed to establish a prima facie case against him. In its considered ruling on the “No case submission”, the learned trial judge upheld the No Case Submission and discharged the accused/appellant and held that there was no prima facie case made against the appellant to warrant him to present his defence. The Respondent became miffed with the ruling of the trial Court and thereby appealed to the Lower Court. The Lower Court consequently upheld the respondents appeal before it and held that the respondent had really made prima facie case against the appellant herein.
The appellant became aggrieved with the decision of the Lower Court and thereupon appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal dated 17th January, 2017 which contains nine grounds of appeal.
In the appellants brief of argument settled by Oludele Adegboyega Adeogun and filed on 31/3/2017, four issues were identified for the determination of this appeal. The said issues are as follows:-
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in evaluating or re-evaluating the evidence adduced by parties before the trial Court when there is no appeal against the finding of facts made by the trial Court or where the appeal thereto has been abandoned. (Distilled from grounds 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and 2011 creates a strict liability offence. (Distilled from grounds 5 and 6. The Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that proliferation of issues from the grounds of appeal is more technical rule rather than fundamental rule.
(Distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal)
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the respondent has made out a prima facie case to warrant the appeal to enter a defence to the charge (Distilled from Ground 9).
On its part, the respondent, upon being served with the appellant’s brief of argument also filed its brief on 27/9/2017 but deemed filed on 11/10/2017. Therein, three issues were proposed for determination which read as below:-
(a) Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in holding that Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 and Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 created strict liability offence (Distilled from Grounds 5 & 6 of the Notice of Appeal).
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in holding that Issue 5 as formulated by the respondent was valid after striking out respondent issue 2 which was distilled solely from ground 6, notwithstanding that Issue 5 was distilled from grounds 6, 12 and 14 of the Notice Appeal (Distilled from Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal)
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in holding that the respondent made out a prima facie case warranting the appellant enter his defence (Distilled from Grounds 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal).
My noble lords, I think it is pertinent to give brief facts of this case which culminated into this appeal. The present appellant and one other co-accused name, Rt. Hon Adeyemi Sabit Ikuforiji were arraigned before the Federal High Court (the trial Court) and tried on a 54 count amended charge. The appellant and the said Adeyemi Ikuforiji stood the trial as 2nd and 1st accused person respectively on the allegation that both of them at various time accepted various payments without going through a financial institution from the Lagos State House of Assembly, a sum of money which were allegedly above the amount authorised, as prescribed by the provisions of Sections 1 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 and the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011. By the amended charge filed against them by the prosecution now respondent, counts 2 – 49 were offences, contrary to the provisions of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 while counts Nos. 1, 50 to 54 were brought pursuant to Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty to all the 54 counts.

…………………….B…………………….