Arraignment

To my mind, the most essential aspect of arraignment is the provision of Section 36 of the Constitution which requires, inter alia, that every person charged with criminal offence is entitled to be informed promptly in the language he understands the details of the nature of the offence. See Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. After the charge is read and explained to the accused he will be asked to plead.
The law does not however insist that it must be read and explained to him in the language he understands in a situation where the accused understands English language as in this instant case where the appellant is a student of a polytechnic.

To my mind, the most essential aspect of arraignment is the provision of Section 36 of the Constitution which requires, inter alia, that every person charged with criminal offence is entitled to be informed promptly in the language he understands the details of the nature of the offence. See Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. After the charge is read and explained to the accused he will be asked to plead.

My lords, permit me now to considered the requirement of a valid arrangement under our laws. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 by its provision of Section 36 (6) provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be informed instantly in the language he understands the nature of the offence he was accused of committing. What is required of a trial Court is to cause the charge to be read and explained to the accused person in the language he understand and if he understands it, then his plaa will be taken. See Darwoda vs The State (2000) 12 SCNJ 9.
By the combined effect of the constitutional provisions mentioned supra and the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Code Act, there can be said to have been a valid arraignment only if the following requirements are satisfied, namely:-
(a) The accused is placed before the Court unfettered unless the trial Court shall see cause to the contrary or otherwise order.
(b) The charge or information shall be read over and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court by the Court registrar, clerk or officer and
(c) The accused shall then be called upon to plead instantly thereto.
In multiplicity of decided authorities of this Court, it has been held that these requirements must be satisfied and the record of the trial must clearly show that the conditions listed above are complied with in order to safeguard the constitutional requirement of fair trial of those arraigned before a trial Court. See Adeniji v. State (2001) 5 SCNJ 379 at 350; Kajubo v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (PT 721); Rufai v. The State (2001) 7 SCNJ 127 at 128. The above requirement of the law is therefore mandatory.

In other words, there cannot be a valid arraignment without the accused being in Court because he must plead to the charge personally. The Court must also be satisfied that the accused person was not before it in a representative capacity.
It is also mandatory that the accused should be told and understands the nature of the charge brought against him. The explanation is only discharged if the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is in fact well acquainted of the reason why he is brought to Court.
The final stage is where the accused must plead to the charge. The plea must be voluntary and free from all forms of inhibitions or external detractions. The reason for the requirements and the strict compliance are to ensure a fair trial of an accused person and also to safeguard his interest at such trial of an accused person and also to safeguard his interest at such a trial. The failure to satisfy any of the essential criteria will render the whole trial incurably defective and null and void. See the cases of Kajubo v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt. 73) 721; Erekanure v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 294) 385 AND KALU V. STATE (1998) 13 NWLR (pt. 583)

For there to be a valid arraignment of the accused person, the following conditions, contained in Section 215(supra) must be satisfied:
1. The accused person shall be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court is satisfied that for safety concerns he should be fettered.
2. The charge shall be read and explained to the accused person in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court by the registrar or any other officer of Court;
3. The accused person shall then be called upon to plead to each charge;
4. The plea of the accused person shall be instantly recorded.
Failure to comply with any of the above renders the whole trial a nullity. See Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.371) p.1532; Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6 SC (Pt. III) p.159; Madu v. State (2012) 6 SC (Pt. 1) p. 80.

Indeed once an arraignment of an accused person fails to comply with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the trial which follows no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity.
It is therefore fundamental that the trial judge ensures that he complies strictly with the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act when an accused person is arraigned before him to take his plea and the judge must make correct recordings to show that there was compliance.

In compliance with the above Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law for the arraignment of an accused person to be valid, the following three essential requirements must be met:-
(a) The accused must be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order;
(b) The charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court; and
(c) The accused shall then be called upon to plead thereto unless of course there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the Court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith.
See; Oguniye v. The State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 604) 548 at 555; Idemudia v. The State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 202 at 203; Sabina C. Madu v. The State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 405; (2012) 6 SCNJ 129; (2012) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 80; (2012) 50 NSCQR 67.

Learned appellant counsel also made a heavy weather on the non-reflection in the trial Court's record of the name of the Registrar that read out and explained the charge to the appellant. Although reflection in the trial Court's record of who read and explained the charge to the accused person forms part of steps of the procedure a trial Court should adhere to while arraigning an accused person but failure or omission by the trial Court to reflect them is not fatal to the proceedings once the arraignment was carried out in a manner which is substantially regular. In the instant case; it is nowhere shown that the appellant was misled by non-reflection of the name of the registrar who read out and explained the charge to the appellant. Therefore, issue No.1 is resolved against the appellant.

Although it is good practice, and indeed desirable that a trial Court specifically records that a charge was read over and explained to an accused person to its satisfaction before he pleaded thereto, it is not the law that unless the Court so expressly records, such an arraignment automatically becomes invalid and null and void. In OGUNYE V. STATE (1999) 5 NWLR (Prt 604) 548, the Supreme Court was of the firm view that the requirement of strict compliance with the requisite provisions of the law relating to arraignment must not be over-stretched to a ridiculous degree and confidence and respectability must be accorded to the integrity of the adjudicator. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the trial Court was not satisfied with the explanation of the charge to the appellant and his co-accused.

The requirements of a valid arraignment must be satisfied and the record of the trial Court must clearly show that the requirements are complied with in order to safeguard the constitutional requirement of fair trial of the person arraigned before the trial Court.
By virtue of Section 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence. Also the provisions of Section 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: –
When the High Court is ready to commence trial, the accused shall appear or brought before it and the charges shall be read out in Court and explained to him and he shall be asked whether he is guilty of the offence or offences charged.
From the community reading of Sections 36 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution and 187 (1) of the CPC, it is clear that where a person is charged with a criminal offence and he is to appear before a Court of law for an arraignment, the following requirements should be satisfied:
(a) the accused must be present and unfettered before the trial Court;
(b) the charge must be read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court by the registrar or other officer of the Court;
(c) the accused shall be called upon to plead; and
(d) his plea shall be instantly recorded by the Court.
It is to be noted that the above requirements must co-exist as any failure to comply with any of the requirements will of necessity render the whole trial a nullity. Therefore, there is a duty on the part of the trial Court to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the laws and plainly the showing so on its record. See OLABODE V. STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (Prt 1152) 254 at 276 279 and JOSEPH V. STATE (Supra).

The proper time to raise objection to arraignment or the procedure commencing trial is before the Court starts dealing with and trying the case: R. v. ADIUKWU 5 WACA 132; ADIO v. THE STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.31) 74; FAWEHINMI v. A.G. LAGOS STATE (NO.1) (1989) NWLR (pt.112) 707 at 721.

It has been said in innumerable decisions of this Court that a valid arraignment of an accused person confers jurisdiction on the Court to proceed with the hearing of the case. A valid arraignment is so fundamental in that if it is not done properly, the Court would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate, and if it does, the whole trial would be a nullity. A trial done when there is an invalid arraignment violates the accused persons right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 (6) of the Constitution. See Timothy v FRN (2012) 6 SC (Pt. iii) p. 159; Adewunmi v State(2016) 1-3 SC (Pt. ii) p.123 Dauda v FRN (2017) 2-3 SC (Pt. ii) p. 158.
An Arraignment would be valid when the charge is read and explained to the accused person in the language he understands, and he is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

The fundamentals of a valid arraignment have been restated in numerous decisions of this Court. In Kajubo Vs The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 721 @ 738 C – F His Lordship, Oputa, JSC stated thus:
" ... for there to be a proper arraignment
(i) "The accused person shall be present in Court.
(ii) The charge or information shall be read over to him in a language he understands.
(iii) The charge or information after being read over in such language should be explained to him avoiding as much as possible the use of technical expressions. This explanation should acquaint the accused person with the essential ingredients of the offence charged and with the factual situation resulting in and giving rise to the offence charged.
(iv) To make assurance doubly sure the trial Judge should also satisfy himself that the explanation of the offence charged was adequate and that the accused understands what he is standing trial for.
It is good practice for trial Courts to specifically record that "the charge was read and fully explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court" before then recording his plea thereto."
See also: Erekanure Vs The State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 385; Solola Vs. The State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460; Olayinka vs The State (2007)9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561.

The interpretation of those Sections was made by this Court in Ogunye v. State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt.604) 548 at 565 paras A – E, Iguh JSC captured the requirements of a valid arraignment in Court as follows:-
"For there to be a valid arraignment of an accused person. These steps are (a) the accused person must be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order; (b) the charge or information must be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court by the registrar or other officer of the Court; and (c) the accused must be called upon to plead thereto unless there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the Court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith.
The above stated requirements of the law are mandatory and not directory and must therefore be strictly complied with in all criminal trials. Since these requirements have been specifically provided to guarantee the fair trial of an accused person and to safeguard his interest at such a trial, failure to satisfy any of them will render the whole trial incurably defective and null and void." (Emphasis mine).

The law is settled that if at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficient to require him to make a defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge discharge him.
In AJULUCHUKWU V. THE STATE (2012) 7 WCC 281 the Court of Appeal on when a no submission will be upheld, stated that:-
"Where there has not been any evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, or the evidence of the prosecution has become manifestly unreliable after cross-examination, that it cannot reasonably be basis for conviction, the respondents should be discharged without being called upon for defence."

The object of arraignment in terms of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law is to ensure that justice is done to the accused by ensuring that he understands the charge against him and so as to enable him to make his defence.
In CHIKAODI MADU V. THE STATE (2012) NCC at 553 this Court on the essential requirement of valid arraignment enumerated conditions for valid arraignment:
"(a). The accused must be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order
(b). The charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court by the registrar or other officer of the Court; and
(c). The accused shall then be called upon to plead instantly thereto unless course, there exist any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the Court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith."
See also OLABODE V. STATE (2009) 4 NCC 199, OGUNYE v. STATE (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt.604) 518; MONSURU SOLOLA & ORS V. STATE, 22 NSCQR 254 at pp. 289-290.

It is stating the obvious that an arraignment of an accused without his taking his plea on the Court in keeping with Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code renders the trial a nullity.

Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap 31, Vol. 2, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978 provides as follows:- "The person to be tried upon any charge or information shall be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order, and the charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court by the Registrar or other officer of the Court, and such person shall be called upon to plead instantly thereto, unless where the person is entitled to service of a copy of the information he objects to the want of such service and the Court finds that he has not been duly served therewith. There is nothing in Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State, which I have reproduced hereinabove that stipulates that the language in which a charge is read and/or explained to an accused person must be expressly recorded before a plea may be valid. It is good practice for the trial Court to specifically record that a charge was read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court and that the accused understood the same before his plea thereto. In Okeke v State (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25 at 99 100 Paras H. B. this Court per Iguh JSC while considering Section 333 of the CPL of Anambra State, 1986, which is similar to Section 215 of Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State, had this to say:- Where, however, from all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the charge it can reasonably be said that the information was read and explained to the Appellant in the language he understood and that he infact understood the same before making his plea, the mere fact that the trial Court did not record the particular language understood by the Appellant in which charge was read over to him should not be fatal to the proceedings. What the law to all intents and purposes enjoins a trial Court to do is to satisfy itself that the accused on the charge being read over and explained to...

I agree with learned counsel that arraignment is a very important initial step in the trial of a person charged with a criminal offence. Where there is no proper arraignment, there is no trial in law, no matter the strength or cogency of the evidence adduced. Any subsequent judgment arising from such proceedings would be rendered totally and incurably defective and consequently declared null and void. See Kajubo v State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721; Eyorokoromo v State (1979) 6-9 SC 3; Erekanure v State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 385; Effiom v The State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 373) 507.

In multiplicity of decided authorities this Court had laid down three requirements which must be followed by trial Court in order to establish valid arraignment or to account for valid arraignment under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The three conditions are hereunder reproduced.
(a) The accused must be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court shall see cause otherwise to order.
(b) The charge or information shall be read and explained to the Accused to the satisfaction of the Court by the Registrar, Court clerk or other officer(s) of the Court, and
(c) The Accused shall then be called upon to plead thereto unless, of course, there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such obligation such as want of service where the accused is not entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the Court is satisfied that he has in fact, not been duly served herewith.
See OGUNLEYE V THE STATE (1999) 5 NWLR (pt.604) 548 at 555; IDEMUDIA v THE STATE (1999) 7 NWLR (pt. 610) 202 at 204; SABINA MADU v THE STATE (1992) 9 SCNJ 1; OLABODE v THE STATE.

Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State lays down the conditions to be fulfilled before there is a valid and proper arraignment of an accused person. The following conditions must be satisfied.
1. the accused person shall be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court otherwise directs e.g. he may be fettered if the judge is satisfied that the accused shows signs of being violent;
2. the charge shall be read over and explained to the accused person to the satisfaction of the Court in the language he understands by the Registrar or other officer of the Court;
3. the accused person shall be called upon to plead to the charge.
See John Timothy v. FRN (2012) 6SC (Pt.iii) p.159
Effiom v. State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.373) p.507
Kojubo v. State (1988) 1 NSCC 19 NSCC P.475
Madu v. State (2012) 6SC (pT.1) p.80
Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the trial a nullity.

Under Common law, ordinarily, the plea of the prisoner completes the arraignment. See; Uwafor Okegbu Vs The State (1979) 11 SC 1. In the instant case the plea of the accused had been taken in the presence of his counsel without any complaint on the procedure employed in the arraignment of the accused. Once an accused person pleads to a charge before the court without any objection, it presupposes that he understands the charge preferred against him. See; Okewu Vs. FRN (supra)

Counsel raised in this court that the plea was not properly recorded in the trial court. This court held that since the accused person understood the English Language, which is the language of the court, there was no need to record that the charge was read to the accused in a language that he understands.
In Okeke Vs The State (2003) 5 SCM 131 on the pleas of the accused, the trial court was said to have recorded it as follows:
"The Charge is read to the accused who pleads not guilty to the charge."
The court opined that two events took place in the above sentence.
The first one is that the charge was read to the appellant. The second one is that the appellant pleaded not guilty. The court continued as follows:
"Putting it another way, while the first event emanated from the court, the second event emanated from the appellant.
I do not think the recording of a charge can be defeated merely because the trial Judge did not record that the charge was read in a particular language which is understood by the accused person, particularly in a situation such as this, where the appellant was represented by counsel.
............taking a plea by an accused person presupposes that he understands the charge."

Ordinarily, for there to be a valid trial of an accused person, there must, be first thing first. There must be a proper arrangement in terms of the procedure laid down in Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law. It reads thus:
"The person to be tried upon any charge or information shall be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order, and the charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court, and such person shall be called upon to plead instantly thereto, unless where the person is entitled to service of a copy of the information he objects to the want of such service and the court finds that he has not been duly served therewith."There is no doubt, the requirement of the above provision or identical provision has been judicially considered in plethoral of decisions of this court. The requirement is to the effect that the charge must be read over to the accused in the language he understands and the charge must be explained to the accused in the language he understands and to the satisfaction of the court before being called upon to plead to the charge. See; Erekanure Vs. The State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.294) 385; Kajubo vs. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 721; (1988) 1 NSCC 475;Efiom Vs State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.373) 507; Timothy Vs. FRN (2012) 7 SCM 214.

Criminal proceedings are commenced when an accused person is arraigned before a Court, or at least, when an information or a charge has been filed against him in Court. See Fawehinmi v. C.O.P (2002) 5 SCNJ Pg. 103 at 127.

In the light of the foregoing, was the Court of Appeal right when it held that the arraignment and taking the plea of the appellant and other accused persons in the chambers of the learned trial Judge was proper. I answer this question in the negative. The proceeding of the 19th of January, 1998 wherein the plea of the appellant and others were taken in the Judge's chambers was not only irregular; it was fundamentally defective rendering the entire proceedings null and void.

The arraignment and taking the plea of an accused person is the very commencement of a criminal trial. It is the stage when the accused person appears at the court, the charge explained to his understanding and pleads thereto in person and not even through his counsel. It is a very fundamental aspect of any criminal proceedings and that underscores the need for the strict and mandatory compliance in matters relating thereto. Thus, any criminal trial, no matter how well conducted, without the plea of the accused person first and properly taken is a nullity.

In the case of Ganiyu v State (2013) 10 NWLR (pt. 1361) 29, this Court, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) referring to Edibo v The State (2007) 13 NWLR (pt. 1051) 306 at 326 stated as follows:- “The arraignment and taking the plea of an accused person is the very commencement of a criminal trial. It is the stage when the accused person appears at the Court; the charge explained to his understanding and pleads thereto in person and not even through his counsel.
It is a very fundamental aspect of any criminal proceedings and that underscores the need for the strict and mandatory compliance in matters relating thereto. Thus any criminal trial, no matter how well conducted, without the plea of the accused person first and properly taken is a nullity.” His Lordship went on to state that:- “It must be pointed out that the taking of the plea of an accused person upon arraignment is a matter of procedural law, not substantive law, the defect on which renders the proceedings a nullity.
Such defect is regarded as a fundamental defect which goes to the jurisdiction of the Court.” From the foregoing, the starting point in a criminal trial is the arraignment of an accused person which becomes valid upon the plea of the accused. I agree that an allegation against a breach of right to fair hearing cannot be successfully raised in limine but at the close of trial when evidence must have been taken .- PER JOHN INYANG OKORO J.S.C

Indeed, it is a constitutional requirement that trials must be held in the public, which is one of the attribute of fair hearing. In a criminal trial, arraignment is a very important and fundamental aspect. Once arraignment is defective, being a foundation, the trial must collapse. My Lord, MOHAMMED, J.C.A in AKIODE V. FRN (2022) LPELR-58266 (CA) held thusly; “A criminal trial starts with the arraignment of an accused person before the trial Court. Arraignment is therefore the foundation of a criminal trial.
The arraignment essentially consists of reading the charge or information to the accused person, or stating to him the substance of the charge or information and calling on him to plead thereto.” The fundamental nature of arraignment has a jurisdictional consequence, if improperly done, it will divest the Court of jurisdiction, see the case of IBRAHIM V.
STATE (2013) LPELR-21883 (SC) where the apex Court held as follows: “The arraignment of an accused person touches on the jurisdiction of the Court and any improper arraignment of the accused is a breach of a fundamental requirement in criminal proceedings which is capable of rendering the totality of the proceedings null and void See Section 36(6)(a) of 1999 Constitution, also S.242 CPC. It was held in State v.
Oladimeji (2003) FWLR (Pt175) 395 at 406 that: “Issue of arraignment is fundamental in a criminal trial because if not properly conducted it may vitiate the proceedings.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.

The law is well settled to the effect that Courts are not in a position to know by themselves or even assume that an accused person does not understand the language of the Court so it is the duty of the accused person and his counsel to inform it that the accused person does not understand the language in which a witness is testifying and if they fail to claim that right at the trial Court, they may not be able to raise it on appeal. See Mallam Madu v. State (1997) LPELR-1808 (SC); R. v. Eguabor (1962) ALL N.L.R. 285; Paul Onyia v. State (2008) LPELR-2743 (SC) p.10-11.
In Madu’s case (supra) Adio, J.S.C., after a thorough review of the cases on the point, stated the position of the law on the issue thus at p.16-17: “The well established practice in relation to provision of an interpreter in superior Courts mentioned above, the question of providing an accused person with an interpreter will only arise under Section 33(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, where the accused person cannot understand the language used at the trial of the offence.
As the Court cannot reasonably assume or presume that every accused person in criminal proceedings before it would not understand the language used at the trial, it is the duty of the accused person or his counsel, acting on his behalf, to bring to the notice of the Court the fact that he does not understand the language in which the trial is conducted, otherwise it will be assumed that he has no cause for that complaint. See State v. Gwonto (1983) 1NSCC 104; (1983) SCNLR 142.
The fact that the accused does not understand the language in which the trial is being conducted is a fact well known to the accused and it is for him or his counsel to take the initiative of bringing it to the notice of the Court at the earliest opportunity or as soon as the situation has arisen. If he does not claim the right at the proper time, before any damage is done, he may not be able to have a valid complaint afterwards, for example, on appeal.” PER UGO, J.C.A.

There is no doubt that a person charged with a criminal offence before a Court of law is entitled to be provided with the service of an interpreter where he does not understand the language of the Court, which in the trial Court, is English Language. This is what is provided in Section 36 (6) (e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as part of the safeguards of ensuring fair hearing to a person accused of an offence.
The importance of interpreting the proceedings of the Court to the accused person in the language he understands and from the accused person to the Court in the language spoken by the Court, cannot be overemphasized. As a matter of fact, the right of an accused person in this regard goes beyond understanding the charge and the whole trial proceedings against him but for him to also be able to fully participate in the trial. On the principles relating to the right of an accused person to an interpreter, see the cases of THE STATE V.
SALIHU MOHAMMED GWONTO (1983) LPELR – 3220 (SC); UMARU SUNDAY V. FRN (2013) LPELR – 21092 (CA); TANKO IKO V. THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 23488 (CA). PER JAURO, J.S.C.

I make haste to state here that the criminal trial of every accused person begins with arraignment and culminates with conviction and sentence in judgment. In the precedent relied upon by the Respondent’s learned Counsel, STATE V. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (FT. 1354) AT PP.586, Mohammad, JSC, defined criminal trial to mean “the whole of the proceedings including the judgment and sentence” This therefore has been the constitutionally inalienable right enjoyed by every accused person.
It is the Respondent’s constitutional right to be heard through his written/oral address or Counsel’s address on his behalf.
Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) contemplated written address or Counsel’s address to be part of the criminal trial or proceedings, when it provides that: Section 294 (1) Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof. Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC in NDU V. STATE (1990) LPELR-1975(SC) (P. 45, PARAS.
A-C) relying on Obodo v. Olomu & Anor (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.59) 111, at p. 123-124, re-iterated this point thus: …this Court has stated before, the addresses of Counsel are an essential part of the trial. That can be the only possible inference from the fact that the constitution itself used the conclusion of addresses as a very important determinant of the time limit for delivery of judgments under Section 258 of the Constitution of 1979. See also STATE V.
LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1354) AT PP.585, wherein this Honourable Court held that “addresses by parties or their Counsel are an integral part of the hearing or trial of an accused person.” The trial Court having conducted the proceedings of 20/11/2015 in the absence of the Respondent jumped the guns and breached his constitutional right.
The essence of the presence of an accused throughout his trial is to afford him an adequate opportunity to play his statutory role and liberty to respond at every stage of the proceedings personally or through a legal practitioner of his own choice for the purpose of ensuring fair hearing. PER AJI, J.S.C.