Judgment
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On 26/3/2012, the respondent sought to arraign the appellant and four others before the High Court of Anambra State, Awka Judicial Division on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder.
Although the charges were read and interpreted to them, they declined to plead thereto on the ground that they had a pending motion challenging the competence of the charge. The motion dated 4/5/2010 was brought pursuant to Section 36(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended and Sections 212, 240, 241 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of Anambra State.
They sought the following reliefs: “An Order: (I) Dismissing or striking out the Proofs of Evidence in this matter as incompetent and an abuse of the Court’s process, (2) Quashing the information as incompetent for failure to contain the proper proofs of evidence as required by Section 211(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law. (3) Dismissing/Striking out the proceedings for violating the applicants’ fundamental right to fair hearing. (4) Quashing the information as the Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offences as they were brought in violation of the applicants’ constitutional right to fair hearing. (5) Quashing the arraignment of the applicants on the information before this Court as the information is incompetent and unsupported by proper proofs of evidence.
And granting such further orders/reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem, just and proper in the circumstances.”
The application was supported by a 22-paragraph affidavit and exhibits attached thereto marked A-F. The applicants filed a written address in support. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit and also filed a written address thereto.
The applicants were initially arraigned before the Magistrates Court Awka in Suit No. MAW/ 1940/07. Having regard to the nature of the charges, the Court declined jurisdiction and referred the matter to office of the Director of Public Prosecution. The prosecution informed the Court that it intended to call 12 witnesses to testify and supplied their details. The Court therefore made an order binding them over to make themselves available to testify before the High Court wherever they were required to do so.
