md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
ADAMU DAUDA –Appellant
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA- Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal, Jos Division delivered on 23rd May, 2014 which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by a Jos Federal High Court.
The appellant was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for offences under Section 518 (5) of the Criminal Code. Section 5(1) and 27(1) of the Firearms Act and Section 15(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Jos Division. That Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court.
Still not satisfied with the conviction by the trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the appellant has appealed to this Court on one ground of appeal from which he formulated a sole issue for determination of this appeal. The sole issue reads:
Whether from the records of proceedings, there was a proper arraignment of the appellant before his trial, conviction and sentence by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents adopted the sole issue formulated by the appellant.
The sole issue formulated by the appellant’s learned counsel shall be considered in resolving this appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal on 15th December, 2016 learned counsel for the appellant, R.George Esq adopted the appellant’s brief filed on 25/8/14 and urged the Court to allow the appeal, while learned counsel for the respondent C. Ihua-Maduenyi Esq, adopted the respondent’s brief filed on 8/9/14 and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm concurrent findings.
Learned counsel for the appellant observed that the appellant as one of the accused persons was not properly arraigned before the trial Court, contending that the charge was not sufficiently read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court. He further observed that the appellant’s plea to the charge was not recorded as provided by law. He submitted that where there is non-compliance with requirements for valid arraignment, the trial is a nullity. Reliance was placed on Yerima v. State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1231) p.25; Okoli v. State (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1281) p.385; Kayode v. State (2008) 1 NWLR (PT. 1068) P. 281.
Concluding he submitted that the effect of failing to comply with Section 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act renders the entire proceedings a nullity. He urged this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
On his part, learned counsel for the respondent observed that there was compliance with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act when the appellant was arraigned and took his plea on 15 June, 2010. Reference was made to pages 67-68 of the Record of Appeal. Reliance was placed on Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 371) p. 1332; Erekanure v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 294) p. 385.
Concluding, he submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
In this appeal the appellant is satisfied with the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 16th December, 2010 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 23 May, 2014. The ONLY complaint of the appellant is that his arraignment in the trial Court was fundamentally flawed, thereby rendering the whole trial a nullity and so entitling him to an acquittal.
Indeed once an arraignment of an accused person fails to comply with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the trial which follows no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity.
It is therefore fundamental that the trial judge ensures that he complies strictly with the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act when an accused person is arraigned before him to take his plea and the judge must make correct recordings to show that there was compliance.
Section 36(6) of the Constitution states that:
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to-
(a) be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in details of the nature of the offence.”
Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that:
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Jos Division. That Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court.
Still not satisfied with the conviction by the trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the appellant has appealed to this Court on one ground of appeal from which he formulated a sole issue for determination of this appeal. The sole issue reads:
Whether from the records of proceedings, there was a proper arraignment of the appellant before his trial, conviction and sentence by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents adopted the sole issue formulated by the appellant.
The sole issue formulated by the appellant’s learned counsel shall be considered in resolving this appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal on 15th December, 2016 learned counsel for the appellant, R.George Esq adopted the appellant’s brief filed on 25/8/14 and urged the Court to allow the appeal, while learned counsel for the respondent C. Ihua-Maduenyi Esq, adopted the respondent’s brief filed on 8/9/14 and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm concurrent findings.
Learned counsel for the appellant observed that the appellant as one of the accused persons was not properly arraigned before the trial Court, contending that the charge was not sufficiently read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court. He further observed that the appellant’s plea to the charge was not recorded as provided by law. He submitted that where there is non-compliance with requirements for valid arraignment, the trial is a nullity. Reliance was placed on Yerima v. State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1231) p.25; Okoli v. State (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1281) p.385; Kayode v. State (2008) 1 NWLR (PT. 1068) P. 281.
Concluding he submitted that the effect of failing to comply with Section 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act renders the entire proceedings a nullity. He urged this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
On his part, learned counsel for the respondent observed that there was compliance with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act when the appellant was arraigned and took his plea on 15 June, 2010. Reference was made to pages 67-68 of the Record of Appeal. Reliance was placed on Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 371) p. 1332; Erekanure v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 294) p. 385.
Concluding, he submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
In this appeal the appellant is satisfied with the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 16th December, 2010 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 23 May, 2014. The ONLY complaint of the appellant is that his arraignment in the trial Court was fundamentally flawed, thereby rendering the whole trial a nullity and so entitling him to an acquittal.
Indeed once an arraignment of an accused person fails to comply with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the trial which follows no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity.
It is therefore fundamental that the trial judge ensures that he complies strictly with the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act when an accused person is arraigned before him to take his plea and the judge must make correct recordings to show that there was compliance.
Section 36(6) of the Constitution states that:
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to-
(a) be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in details of the nature of the offence.”
Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that:
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading DAUDA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.