NWANKWOALA v. FRN

For clarity, the three counts charge under which the appellant was charged and convicted may be set out as follows:
COUNT 1
CORRUPT DEMAND BY PERSON CONTRARY TO SECTION 10(A)(II) OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2000.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
That you Temple Nwankwoala (DSP) of the Nigeria Police Force, at Benin City, Edo State on or about 18 of October, 2006, being a Police Officer in charge of the Homicide section attached to the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 5, Benin City, did ask or demand for the sum of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) from Elder Alexander Okiye being a person against whom criminal complaints were made on account of the said criminal complaints being investigated as an inducement to write, secure, procure and confer a favourable report of Elder Alexander Okiye in respect of the criminal complaints and thereby committed an offence punishable ”under” Section 10(a)(II) of the ICPC Act 2000.
COUNT 2
CORRUPT RECEIPT BY PERSON CONTRARY TO SECTION 10(A) (II) OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2000
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
That you, Temple Nwankwoala, (DSP) and an officer in charge of the Homicide Section attached to the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 5, Benin City Edo State on or about 6th of November, 2006 did received the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as gratification from Elder Alexander Okiye against whom criminal complaints were made and being investigated in order to write, secure, procure and confer a favourable report in favour of the suspect, Elder Alexander Okiye in respect of the Criminal complaints made against him, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 10(a)(II) of the ICPC Act 2000
COUNT 3
FAILURE TO REPORT OFFER OF GRATIFICATION CONTRARY TO SECTION 23(1) OF THE ICPC ACT 2000 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
That you, Temple Nwankwoala, (DSP) of the Nigeria Police Force, being the officer in charge of the Homicide section in the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 5, Benin on or about 26 October 2006 in the course of investigation of complaints of crimes against one Elder Alexander Okiye was offered gratification by the said Elder Alexander Okiye but refused and failed to report the offer of gratification to any officer of the Independent Corrupt Practices – Commission (ICPC) in Benin city or any Police Officer and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 23 (1) of the ICPC Act 2000.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the original two counts, subsequently amended by the addition of a third count. Trial eventually got underway.
The prosecution called four witnesses. Fifteen documents were admitted as exhibits A-P.
The appellant testified in his defence and called three witness. In a considered judgment delivered on 25 January, 2012 the learned trial Judge Ikponmwem J found the appellant guilty on counts 1 and 3. The appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with hard labour on count 1 while he was cautioned and discharged on count 3.
Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. It was heard by the Court of Appeal,Benin Division.
That Court in a judgment delivered on 23 February, 2015 affirmed the judgment of the trial Court in these words:
“Having therefore determined the two issues canvassed by the appellant against him, the conclusive effect is that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed by me. The lucid and sound decision of Justice E.F. Ikponmwen of the Edo State High Court delivered on the 25th of January, 2013 is hereby affirmed. I also affirm the conviction and sentence of the lower Court.”
This appeal is against that judgment. Briefs were filed and exchanged by counsel.
The appellant’s brief was filed on 28th July 2016, while the respondent’s brief was filed on 1st February, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on 1st November, 2017.
Mr. O. Ovrawah, learned counsel for the appellant formulated two issues for determination. They are:
ISSUE 1
Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were correct when they held that the trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 was valid whereas the Corrupt Practices and Other Related, Offences Act 2003 had expressly repealed the 2000 Act?

…………………….B…………………….