KOMOLAFE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

…………………….A…………………….

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant herein and one Mrs. Ruth Adehwe Aweto were bursar and provost respectively of Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan. They were arraigned before the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan charged with offences bordering on contravention of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. During the trial the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence. The Appellant and his co-accused testified in their defence and called additional four witnesses.
At the end of the trial and in a reserved and considered judgment, the Appellant and his co-accused were each convicted under counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 and sentenced to one year imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, where his appeal was dismissed. He has now brought this appeal. His Notice of Appeal dated 28th November, 2015 and filed on the 29th November, 2017 contains four grounds of appeal. Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief of argument, settled by Oluwasina Ogungbade Esq of counsel to the appellant was filed on the 19th December, 2017. Learned counsel submitted two issues for determination of this appeal. These two issue are hereunder reproduced as follows:-
1. Whether the High Court of Oyo State had the jurisdiction to try the Appellant for the offences charged particular regard being had to the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 251(1)(p) and 251(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended)?
2. Whether in the absence of proof of a corrupt intent in the preparation of the budget proposals, the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof required for the conviction of the Appellant under the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
The Respondent’s brief of argument settled by Enosa Omoghibo Esq of counsel was filed on the 17th January, 2018. Learned counsel formulated two issues for determination of this appeal. They read thus:-
(a) Whether the High Court of Oyo State had the jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offences charged under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 having regard to the provisions of Sections 251 (1)(p) and 251 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
(b) Whether the prosecution had not proved corrupt intent as an ingredient of the offence created under the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 to ground a conviction.
Appellant filed a reply brief on 18th January, 2018. Before I delve into the submissions of learned counsel, I wish to set out in brief the facts that gave rise to this appeal, which are in my view simple and straight forward. The Appellant herein was the bursar of the Federal Cooperative College Ibadan. Mrs Ruth Adehwe Aweto was the provost of the same college. The two of them prepared and submitted nominal rolls and Budget proposals for the staff of the college for 2006, wherewith they presented 41 casual staff as permanent staff. As a result of such presentation to the Federal Government, the sum of N7,041,861.15 was released every year as salaries and emoluments for the 41 casual staff, whereas the actual amount that was paid to the casual staff was N3,690,000.00 only.
In arguing the first issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Section 251 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria confers criminal jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in respect of matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 251 (1) of the same Constitution. According to the learned counsel, one of the areas over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction are matters involving the administration, management and control of the Federal Government and its agencies. It is the view of the learned counsel that the conduct forming the basis of the charge against the Appellant was in the performance of his duty as the bursar of the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan, an agency of the Federal Government, as such only the Federal High Court could validly try the offences alleged to have been committed as reflected on the charge.
Section 251 (1)(a) and (p) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:-
251 (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary