md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
ABUBAKAR MOHAMMED- Appellant
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):The appellant was charged before the Federal High Court, Ilorin Division on a one count of charge as follows:
“That you Abubakar Mohammed, male, adult on or about the 18th day of March, 2011 along Jebba/Mokwa express Way at Bode Sa’adu in Moro Local Government Area of Kwara State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court without lawful authority dealt in 20 kilogrammes of cannabis sativa (otherwise known as Indian Hemp) a drug similar to cocaine, heroin, LSD etc and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 11(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap. N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
He was arraigned on 12/4/2011. He pleaded guilty to the charge after it was read and interpreted to him in Hausa Language. The following items were tendered by the prosecution without objection and marked Exhibits A-H:
Statement of the appellant in Hausa and translated into English Language – Exhibit A.
Packing of substance form – Exhibit B.
Certificate of test analysis – Exhibit C. Request for scientific aid form – Exhibit D
Brown sealed envelope – Exhibit E
Evidence pouch containing sample of the analysed drug – Exhibit F
Drug analysis report – Exhibit G
Bulk Exhibit – Exhibit H.
Thereafter the prosecution applied that the appellant be convicted as charged. There was no objection from M.A. Lawal Esq. who represented the appellant. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21/2 years imprisonment commencing from 12/4/2011.
Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence he appealed to the Court below. The two grounds of appeal without their particulars read as follows:
Ground 1
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to try the accused person for the offence of illegal possession of Indian Hemp when the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to try the said offence.
Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law by admitting the accused person’s statement in Hausa and English versions in evidence in the absence of oral evidence of the reader and interpreter of the said confessional statement.
The appellant formulated one issue each from each ground of appeal. In a unanimous judgment delivered on 26/6/2013 the lower Court resolved both issues against the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant is still aggrieved and has further appealed to this Court vide his notice of appeal filed on 25/7/2013 containing 3 grounds of appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal on 14/12/2017, Isiaka Abiola Olagunju Esq., leading other counsel adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief filed on 9/1/2014 in urging the Court to allow the appeal. J.N. Sunday Esq., Director of Prosecution and Legal Services, NDLEA leading S.I. Mark Esq., Assistant Chief Legal Officer, adopted and relied on the respondent’ brief which was deemed filed on 10/6/15 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.
From the 3 grounds of appeal the appellant distilled two issues for determination:
1. Whether the lower Court rightly affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence in the face of the appellant’s invalid arraignment and unfair trial (Ground 1).
2. Whether with regard to the offence of unlawful possession of Indian Hemp the lower Court was right when it held that the Indian Hemp Act (Vide its Section 8) Cap 16 VoL 7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 is inconsistent with or has been repealed by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 Vol. 9 LFN 2004 thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.(Grounds 2 and 3).
In formulating his issues for determination, learned counsel for the respondent observed that the appellant’s first issue is radically different from the issue he raised at the lower Court. He submitted that the said issue was raised without the leave of this Court and ought to be struck out. He cited Ogbu & Anor Vs the State (2007) 2 SCNJ 319 and Incar Nig. Plc & Anor Vs Bolex Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (2001) 5 SCNJ 460 in support of his position. In the event that this submission is not accepted by this Court, he formulated the following two issues for determination:
1. Whether the Appellant’s arraignment was in compliance with the requirement of the law.
2. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try Indian Hemp cases.
He was arraigned on 12/4/2011. He pleaded guilty to the charge after it was read and interpreted to him in Hausa Language. The following items were tendered by the prosecution without objection and marked Exhibits A-H:
Statement of the appellant in Hausa and translated into English Language – Exhibit A.
Packing of substance form – Exhibit B.
Certificate of test analysis – Exhibit C. Request for scientific aid form – Exhibit D
Brown sealed envelope – Exhibit E
Evidence pouch containing sample of the analysed drug – Exhibit F
Drug analysis report – Exhibit G
Bulk Exhibit – Exhibit H.
Thereafter the prosecution applied that the appellant be convicted as charged. There was no objection from M.A. Lawal Esq. who represented the appellant. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21/2 years imprisonment commencing from 12/4/2011.
Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence he appealed to the Court below. The two grounds of appeal without their particulars read as follows:
Ground 1
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to try the accused person for the offence of illegal possession of Indian Hemp when the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to try the said offence.
Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law by admitting the accused person’s statement in Hausa and English versions in evidence in the absence of oral evidence of the reader and interpreter of the said confessional statement.
The appellant formulated one issue each from each ground of appeal. In a unanimous judgment delivered on 26/6/2013 the lower Court resolved both issues against the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant is still aggrieved and has further appealed to this Court vide his notice of appeal filed on 25/7/2013 containing 3 grounds of appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal on 14/12/2017, Isiaka Abiola Olagunju Esq., leading other counsel adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief filed on 9/1/2014 in urging the Court to allow the appeal. J.N. Sunday Esq., Director of Prosecution and Legal Services, NDLEA leading S.I. Mark Esq., Assistant Chief Legal Officer, adopted and relied on the respondent’ brief which was deemed filed on 10/6/15 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.
From the 3 grounds of appeal the appellant distilled two issues for determination:
1. Whether the lower Court rightly affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence in the face of the appellant’s invalid arraignment and unfair trial (Ground 1).
2. Whether with regard to the offence of unlawful possession of Indian Hemp the lower Court was right when it held that the Indian Hemp Act (Vide its Section 8) Cap 16 VoL 7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 is inconsistent with or has been repealed by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 Vol. 9 LFN 2004 thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.(Grounds 2 and 3).
In formulating his issues for determination, learned counsel for the respondent observed that the appellant’s first issue is radically different from the issue he raised at the lower Court. He submitted that the said issue was raised without the leave of this Court and ought to be struck out. He cited Ogbu & Anor Vs the State (2007) 2 SCNJ 319 and Incar Nig. Plc & Anor Vs Bolex Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (2001) 5 SCNJ 460 in support of his position. In the event that this submission is not accepted by this Court, he formulated the following two issues for determination:
1. Whether the Appellant’s arraignment was in compliance with the requirement of the law.
2. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try Indian Hemp cases.
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading MOHAMMED 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.