Defect in A Charge

By section 167 (supra), on the other hand, any objection to a charge for any formal defect on the face thereof shall be taken immediately after the charge had been read over to the accused and not later. Put differently, an accused person is under obligation to raise any objection to any formal defect to a charge before he takes his plea

Ibrahim v. State LGC(27/3/2015) H

For a Charge to be bad for duplicity, it must contain more than one offence in the same Count or a repetition of an offence already stated in another Count. Upon a cursory look at the Charge which has been reproduced above, can it be rightly said that the Charge is bad for duplicity? The response is in the negative and this is because it is abundantly clear that each of the three separate offences are contained in three separate counts. Documents and Statutes that are clear and unambiguous must be given their literal meaning.
Furthermore, in addition, the Appellant must show how the duplicity of the Charge misled him or caused him to suffer a miscarriage of Justice. The Courts have since moved away from the era of technical justice to an era of substantive justice. Reason being that the Court recognizes that we are human and therefore fallible and susceptible to slips and minor errors.
Where such errors do not in any way infringe on the fundamental rights of the Accused Person as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), this Court will not interfere with the decision of the trial Court. I find the dictum of His Lordship, KALGO, J.S.C. in the case of ONAKOYA V. FRN (2002) LPELR-2670 (SC) very instructive on this issue. The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which upheld the decision of the Failed Banks Tribunal, Lagos Zone V.
The Accused at the Failed Banks Tribunal, Lagos Zone V, pleaded not guilty to charge of committing a felony by approving and granting credit facility of 14m to one Alhaji Ibrahim, a customer of the Maiduguri Branch of the Savannah Bank of Nigeria PLC without lawful authority and in violation of the lending rules and regulations in force at the time in Savannah Bank particularly Memorandum 119. The Conduct is also an Offence contrary to Section 19(1)(a) (b) & (c) of the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Decree No.18 of 1994 as amended.
In dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court while affirming the decision of this Court acknowledged that there was procedural irregularity but it did not lead to miscarriage of justice. The Apex Court held thus; “Duplicity is a matter of procedure or form and not evidence. See R. v. Greenfield (1973.) 57 Cr. App, R. 849. It is covered by Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act which provides in part: “For every distinct offence with which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge …” It is therefore a matter of procedure and not law. This Court in the case of Nwosu v.
Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 688 at 717 had this to say:- “As we have stated several times, the days when parties pick their way in this Court through naked technical rules of procedure, the breach of which does not occasion a miscarriage of justice are fast sinking into the limbo of forgotten things. The Court now takes the view that not every slip is fatal to the cause of justice. Judges are not omniscient robots, which never deviate from a programmed course. They sometimes slip.
But only those slips that have been shown to have affected the decision appealed against will amount to a substantial misdirection which will result in the appeal being allowed. See on this Onajobi v. Olanipekun (1985) 11 SC (Pt. 11) 156 at 163; also Jude Ezeoke & Ors. v. Moses Nwagbo & Anor (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.72) 616 at 626. ” PER DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.