Judgment
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Aba Judicial Division delivered on the 8th day of March, 2021 in Charge No: A/29C/2020 but substituted with A/84c/2020. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS The Appellant and one other were charged for the offences of conspiracy, kidnapping and unlawful possession of offensive weapons, and were arraigned before a High Court sitting in Aba. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. On the 2nd of November, 2020, a fresh information with a three count charge was filed.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges of kidnapping and unlawful possession of offensive weapons. The prosecution called his witnesses PW1 and PW2 respectively.
In the cause of prosecuting the case and as PW2, Inspector Anthony Samuel of the Nigeria Police Force with the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Response Team, Force Headquarters Abuja, testified on the 30th of November, 2020, the prosecutor sought to tender through the witness, the confessional statement of the Defendants. Learned counsel for the Appellant objected on the ground that the said statement were not obtained voluntarily.
This is because their counsel was not present during the making of the said statement and that the defendants were not videotaped in the cause of making the statement. The Defence counsel argued that the Practice Direction issued by the Chief Judge of Abia State made on the 3rd day of June, 2020, which directed that evidence in trial within trial should be taken alongside the substantive case, and in the address of counsel, while ruling will be taken at the time of judgment for speedy dispensation of criminal justice was unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The prosecution responded that the absence of video or a lawyer while making statements does not affect admissibility and that the Chief Judge by virtue of the practice direction did not abolish trial within trial but rearranged it. The Court below in her ruling on the 8th day of March, 2021 stated that the issue before him was simply whether the extra-judicial statement made by the Defendant could be admitted in evidence, and not the legality or otherwise of the Chief Judge’s Practice direction.
