Judgment
KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) : This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Katsina Division, Katsina in charge no. FHC/K1/23C/2018 Coram; Hon. Justice H. R. Shagan delivered on the 27th day of May, 2019.
The brief facts of this case, which gave rise to the appeal are that the Appellant Shamsu Mannir and Tasiu Suleman, were arrested on the 15th October 2017 at Charanchi town in possession of 41 Kilograms of suspected psychotropic substance believed to be Tramadol by the men of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency during a JTF Operation.
They were consequently charged under Section 14(b) and Section 19 of the NDLEA ACT CAP N30 Laws of the Federation 2004 on a two count charge of possession of narcotic drugs similar to cocaine, heroin and LSD before the Federal High Court sitting at Katsina on a charge sheet dated the 10th day of January, 2018. The defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges and the case was adjourned for trial.
The defendants’ counsel filed a notice of Preliminary Objection dated the 3rd day of December, 2018 on three grounds; the first ground being that the offences upon which the defendants were standing trial were unknown to Nigerian Law, for three sub-reasons: Firstly, that tramadol is not listed among psychotropic substances outlined in the 2nd Schedule of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act. The Dangerous Drugs Act or any other Legislative or written law fully enacted.
Secondly, that Section 36(8) and (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) operated in favour of the defendants and Thirdly, that Nigeria is not a signatory to the United Nation Conventions that restricts the sale of tramadol. The second ground was that the charge preferred against the defendants was purely based on suspicion. The third and final ground on which the Preliminary Objection was brought was premised on the assertion that the Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear this case.
The preliminary objection was heard and in considered ruling of the lower Court delivered on 27/5/2017, it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the ruling the Appellant (defendant) filed a Notice of Appeal raising three grounds of appeal thus: GROUND ONE: The learned trial Court erred in law when it relied on the processes filed on behalf of the Respondent out of time without leave of the trial Court having been sought and obtained, in its ruling and dismiss the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on behalf of the Appellant.
