MMAMMAN v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

Dissatisfied with the judgment he appealed. The appeal came before the Court of Appeal, Benin Division. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of that court reads:
“On the whole, for the reasons stated above by me, this appeal succeeds in part and it is hereby allowed appropriately. The conviction and sentence of the appellant pursuant to count 9 of the Amended Charge by the Tribunal are affirmed and confirmed respectively and accordingly. However, the appellant’s conviction and sentence on count 11 are quashed and I hereby order that the said count 11 against the appellant be struck out.”
This appeal is against that judgment. In accordance with the Rules of this court briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellant’s brief was deemed filed on the 15th of February 2012, while the respondent’s brief was deemed filed on the 29th of November 2012.
Learned counsel for the appellant formulated a sole issue for determination. It reads:
Was the Appellate Court right in upholding the interpretation of the Tribunal that section 18(1)(b) of BOFID creates two offences and thereby held appellant guilty for granting unauthorized advances or credit facility in contravention of Exhibit FB45.
On the other side of the fence learned counsel for the respondent formulated two issues for determination of this appeal. They are:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the Failed Bank Tribunal in convicting and sentencing the 1st accused on count 9.
2. Whether count 9 predicated on section 18 (1) (b) of Banks and other Financial Institutions Decree No.25 of 1991 (otherwise referred to as BOFID) is bad for duplicity of charges.
I have examined the Record of Appeal and the briefs filed by counsel. The appellant was convicted because he granted unauthorized credit. To my mind the live issue for determination is whether the appellant did in fact grant unauthorized credit. Issue 1 presented by learned counsel for the respondent would easily resolve that issue and incidentally the only live issue. At the hearing of the appeal on the 29th of November 2012 learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. E. A. Uwaifo adopted the appellant brief deemed filed on the 15th of February 2012 and urged this court to allow the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent Dr. V.J.O. Azinge adopted the respondent’s brief deemed filed on the 29th of November 2012 and urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
ISSUE 1
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the Failed Banks Tribunal in convicting and sentencing the 1st accused person on count 9.
COUNT 9 reads:
“That you Mohammed Kabir MMAMMAN (m) between the 25th day of November, 1993 and 3rd December 1993 at Kano within the jurisdiction of this tribunal, whilst being Relief Manager of Allied Bank of Nigeria PLC, Kano main branch granted unauthorized advances or credit facilities totaling N61,075,000 (Sixty-one million, seventy five thousand Naira only) to your customer, one Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar Mohammed (m), in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Bank and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18 (1) (b) of the Banks and other Financial Institutions Decree No.25 of 1991”
The appellant was charged with granting unauthorized advances or credit facilities amounting to N61,075,000 to Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar, a customer of the Bank contrary to section 18(1)(b) of the Banks and other financial institutions Decree No.25 of 1991,and the Rules and Regulations of Allied Bank.
After reviewing evidence the learned trial judge found the appellant (Ist accused)guilty on count 9.
His lordship said:
“The 1st accused to my mind contributed in perpetuating the irregularity, if not illegality associated with the instant credit facility granted to the 3rd accused irrespective of the huge amount involved and irrespective of the embargo imposed on granting such facility. The Rules and Regulation shown to have been violated are found in Exhibit FB45. The 1st accused was not authorized or empowered by the Bank to grant direct credit as he did. It was granted contrary to the Regulation and circular of the Bank, Exhibit FB45 disallowing the grant of credit facility. The direct facility allowed the 3rd accused was unauthorized and thereby rendered the Ist accused liable to conviction on count 9 under Section 18(1)(b) of BOFID.”
In confirming the judgment of the trial tribunal the Court of Appeal said:
“I cannot agree more with the above stated conclusions of the learned trial judge. The defence of ignorance of the credit guidelines glibly relied upon by the appellant and his exercise that Alhaji I. A. Mohammed had long been accorded special privileges of credit facilities from the Banks (Kano branch) are of no moment and cannot avail him. Unfortunately for the appellant, he got ensured and shackled when he contravened his employers guidelines with his two eyes wide opened and his understanding antenna properly tuned. He has himself to blame for his indiscretion.”
Concluding the Court of Appeal then said:
“…….In my sincere view, the Tribunal made far reaching findings of facts after assessment and evaluation of the evidence adduced before it unhesitatingly, I hold that the case against the appellant on count 9 was proved.”
Learned counsel for the appellant observed that there is miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of two lower courts as it concerns count 9, contending that the interpretation of Section 18(1)(b) of the Decree by both courts below affected the charge consequently the entire proceedings at the trial. She further observed that heavy