WEEK

 3  &4  
Sources  of  Criminal  Procedure  Laws  
 
(A) Primary  sources/principal  Laws  are:  
1. Criminal  Procedure  Laws  (applicable  to  Southern  States  other  than  Lagos)  
2. Criminal  Procedure  Code  Laws  (applicable  in  the  Northern  States)  
3. Administration   of   Criminal   Justice   (Repeal   and   Re-­‐enactment)   Law   of   Lagos   State  
2011  
4. Administration   of   Criminal   Justice   Act   2015   (Repealed   the   Criminal   Procedure   Act  
and  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  but  currently  only  applicable  to  the  Federal  High  
Court,   the   National   Industrial   Court   and   Courts   in   Abuja   because   the   States   must  
first  adopt  it  before  it  will  apply  nationwide).  
 
(B) Secondary  sources  are:  
1. Evidence  Act  2011  
2. The  1999  Constitution  as  Amended  
3. The  Police  Act  
4. The  Armed  Forces  Act  
5. Coroners’  Laws  of  the  States  
6. Children  and  Young  Persons  Law  
7. Magistrate  Court  Laws  
 
Lacunas  in  the  CPL,  CPCLL  the  ACJL  and  the  ACJA  
! Under  the  CPLs,  the  Courts  are  to  apply  similar  rules  as  the  English  High  Court  does:  
s.  363  CPL  
! Under   the   CPCLL,   the   application   of   the   English   High   Court   Procedure   is   prohibited.  
Under   s.   35   of   the   High   Court   Law   of   Northern   Nigeria   1963:   High   CTs   in   the  
North  can  look  to  any  other  law  made  for  that  purpose  or  pass  another  law  to  take  
care   of   it;   and   if   no   such   law   exists,   then   they   must   do   what   will   amount   to  
substantial  justice.  
! Under  ACJL,  the  Court  may  in  its  discretion  apply  rules  of  English  High  Courts.  Under  
s.   266   of   the   ACJL:   where   a   matter   arises   in   respect   of   which   no   adequate  
provisions  are  made  in  the  rules,  the  Ct  shall  adopt  such  procedure  as  will  in  its  view  
do  substantial  justice  btw  the  parties.  
! The  ACJA  2015  is  silent  on  this  issue  so  it  is  assumed  that  there  will  not  be  recourse  
to  the  English  High  Courts  going  forward.  
 
Criminal  Jurisdiction  of  Courts  
Jurisdiction  is  statutory,  as  it  must  be  contained  in  a  Law  or  Act.  It  is  divided  into  two  types:  
 
(A) Courts  of  General  Criminal  Jurisdiction  which  are:  
1. Area  Courts  
2. Customary  Courts  
3. Magistrate  Courts  
4. High  Courts  of  the  States  and  the  FCT  Abuja  
 
(B) Courts  of  Special  Criminal  Jurisdiction  are:  
1. Federal  High  Court  
2. National  Industrial  Court  
3. Court  Martials  
4. Juvenile  Courts  
5. Coroner’s  Courts  
 
 
COURTS  OF  CRIMINAL  JURISDICTION  
1)   Courts  of  Special  Criminal  Jurisdiction  
These  courts  are  set  up  to  try  particular  types  of  offences  or  particular  classes  of  offenders.  
 
2)   Courts  of  General  Criminal  Jurisdiction  
Courts   of   General   Criminal   Jurisdiction,   on   the   other   hand,   are   courts   that   have   jurisdiction  
over   different   classes   of   offenders   and   in   respect   of   different   types   of   offences.   Courts   of  
General  Criminal  Jurisdiction  are  further  subdivided  into  two:  
i. Courts  of  Original  Criminal  jurisdiction,  and  
ii. Courts  of  Appellate  Criminal  Jurisdiction.  
 
i. Courts  of  Original  Criminal  Jurisdiction    
These  are  courts  you  can  commence  criminal  proceedings  at  first  instance,  e.g.  Magistrate  
Courts  and  High  Courts.  Below  are  the  Courts  of  original  criminal  jurisdiction.  
 
SOUTHERN  NIGERIA  
A. CUSTOMARY  COURTS  
Customary  courts  are  established  in  all  the  States  of  Southern  Nigeria  in  accordance  with  
the  Customary  Courts  Laws  of  the  various  States.  In  Lagos  State,  the  applicable  law  is  the  
Customary  Courts  Law,  2004.    
 
Customary  Courts  have  original  criminal  jurisdiction  in  respect  of  the  following  offences:  
1. Cases  of  violation  of  the  Rules  and  Bye-­‐laws  of  Local  Governments.  
2. Laws  that  expressly  confers  jurisdiction  on  Customary  Courts.  
3. Any  case  of  contempt  in  the  face  of  a  court.  
 
In  Lagos  State,  upon  conviction,  a  Customary  Court  Grade  (A)  can  impose  a  maximum  fine  
of  N200  and  one  year  imprisonment.  The  Customary  Court  Grade  B  can  impose  a  maximum  
fine   of   N100   or   six   months   imprisonment.   The   authority   of   the   Customary   Court   to   try  
criminal  matters  is  drawn  from  Section  36(12)  of  the  1999  Constitution  which  provides  
as  follows:  
“…   A   written   law   refers   to   an   Act   of   the   National   Assembly   or   a   law   of   a  
State,  any  subsidiary  legislation  or  instrument  under  the  provisions  of  a  
law.”  
 
B. MAGISTRATE  COURTS  
The   various   Magistrate   Courts   Laws   of   the   States   in   Southern   Nigeria   establish   different  
grades  of  Magistrate  Courts.  
  
JURISDICTION  TO  TRY  OFFENCES  
In  Lagos,  there  are  no  longer  grades  of  Magistrate  courts.  
The   jurisdiction   of   a   Magistrate   Court   in   the   South   to   try   an   offence   depends   on   whether  
the   offence   is   an   indictable   offence   or   a   non-­‐indictable   offence.     That   is   the   provision   of  
Section  18  of  the  Magistrate  Court  Law  (MCL)  
 
Section   2   of   the   MCL   defines   indictable   and   non-­‐indictable   offences.     It   states   that   an  
indictable  offence  is  any  offence  which  may  be  punished  by:  
1. A  term  of  imprisonment  exceeding  two  years  or  
2. A  fine  exceeding  N500.  
Any  fine  that  does  not  fall  into  this  category  is  a  non-­‐indictable  office.  
 
All   the   seven   grades   of   Magistrate   Courts   can   try   any   non-­‐indictable   offence.   For   indictable  
offences,   Magistrate   Grade   II   to   Chief   Magistrate   Grade   I   can   try   indictable   offences.  
Provided  that  no  grade  of  Magistrate  can  try  capital  offence,  that  is,  offence  punishable  by  
death.   For   offences   that   are   indictable,   consent   of   accused   and   prosecution   is   required   to  
try  person  in  Magistrate  court.    
 
The   sentences   contained   in   Section   18   of   the   MCL   are   the   maximum   that   the   Magistrate  
Courts  in  Lagos  State  can  impose.    Therefore,  despite  the  provision  of  Section   380   of   the  
Criminal   Procedure   Laws,  which  allow  an  upper  limit  of  four  years  where  the  sentences  
are  consecutive,  a  Magistrate  Court  in  Lagos  cannot  exceed  the  limits  created  by  Section  18  
of   the   MCL.     That   is   because   while   Section   380   of   the   CPL   is   a   general   provision,   Section   18  
of  the  MCL  is  a  specific  provision.  
 

Where  the  aggregate  or  the  sum  total  of  the  consecutive  sentences  imposed  by  a  Magistrate  
Court   exceeds   its   jurisdiction   to   punish   under   Section   18   of   the   MCL   the   sentences   shall   be  
reduced   on   appeal   to   the   Magistrate’s  limit  under  Section  18  of  the  MCL.    See  the  case   of  
Emone   v.   The   Police  (1956):  in  this  case,  a  Magistrate  Court  Grade  II,  which  previously  
had  jurisdiction  to  impose  a  maximum  sentence  of  one  year,  convicted  the  accused  person  
on   three   counts   of   offences.   The   court   passed   consecutive   sentences,   which   added   up   to  
two  years.  On  appeal,  the  sentence  was  reduced  to  one  year.  The  same  decision  was  arrived  
at  in  Quartey  V.  IGP  (1957).  
Similarly,  if  the  Magistrate  Court  exceeds  its  limit  to  impose  a  fine,  on  appeal,  the  fines  shall  
be  reduced  to  the  limit  of  the  Magistrate  Court’s  jurisdiction  to  impose  a  fine  under  Section  
18  of  the  MCL.  Note  that  the  State  Governor  may,  by  notice  published  in  the  Official  Gazette,  
increase  the  jurisdiction  of  Magistrate  Courts.  
 
In  Lagos  State,  there  is  a  significant  distinction  between  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Magistrate  
Court   to   try   offences   and   their   jurisdiction   to   impose   penalty.   The   jurisdiction   to   try   an  
offence   is   determined   by   whether   the   offence   is   indictable   or   non-­‐indictable.     Section   18   of  
the   MCL   provides   that   all   grades   of   Magistrates   in   Lagos   can   try   every   non-­‐indictable  
offence.     However,   with   respect   to   indictable   offences,   all   Magistrates   except   Magistrate  
Grade   III   have   jurisdiction   to   try.   Therefore,   once   an   offence   is   non-­‐indictable,   no   matter  
the  penalty  prescribed  for  the  offence  by  the  law  which  created  it,  a  Magistrate  in  Lagos  can  
try  an  offender  for  the  offence.      
 
However,  because  Section  18  states  limits  on  the  jurisdiction  of  each  grade  of  Magistrate  to  
impose   penalties,   a   Magistrate   Court   that   tries   an   offence   for   which   it   cannot   impose   the  
maximum  penalty  can  only  impose  the  penalty  prescribed  for  it  by  Section  18  of  the  MCL.  
 
In  Maiyaki   &   Ors.   V.   The   Registrar,   Yaba   Magistrate   Court   (1990),   a  Magistrate  Court  
Grade  I  tried  the  accused  person  for  attempted  murder,  which  carries  a  maximum  penalty  
of   life   imprisonment.     Upon   conviction,   the   court   imposed   a   sentence   of   3   years.     The   Court  
of   Appeal   upheld   the   sentence   but   noted   that   it   borders   on   judicial   rascality   for   a   Chief  
Magistrate  to  have  assigned  an  offence  punishable  with  life  imprisonment  to  a  Magistrate  
Court  Grade  I.  
 
APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  OF  MAGISTRATE  COURT  
By  virtue  of  Section   41   of   the   Customary   Courts   Law   (CCL),  the  Magistrate  Court  hears  
all  criminal  appeal  from  Customary  Courts.  
 
MAGISTRATE  COURTS  IN  OTHER  SOUTHERN  STATES  
Magistrate   Courts   exist   in   other   Southern   States   of   Nigeria   with   similar   features   as   the  
courts   in   Lagos   State.     In   Delta   State   for   instance,   the   Magistrate   Courts   have   jurisdiction  
over:  
1. Any  offence  for  which  the  Magistrate  Court  has  jurisdiction  to  impose  the  maximum  
penalty.  
2. All   other   offences   for   which   the   Magistrate   Court   cannot   impose   the   maximum  
penalty  provided  that:  
a. The   court   is   of   the   opinion   that   given   the   particular   circumstance   of   the  
offence   and   the   antecedents   of   the   accused,   that   the   court   can   adequately  
punish  the  accused  within  the  limit  of  the  court’s  jurisdiction  to  punish.  
b. The  accused  person  consents  to  be  tried  by  the  Magistrate  Court  and  
c. The  prosecutor,  if  a  Law  Officer,  consents  to  the  trial.  
3. Any  offence,  which  is  declared  by  the  law,  which  created  it  to  be  triable  summarily.  
 
The  jurisdiction  of  Magistrate  Courts  in  other  Southern  States  may  also  be  increased  by  the  
Governor,  by  notice  published  in  the  Official  Gazette.      
 
NORTHERN  NIGERIA    
A. AREA  COURTS  
Before   the   creation   of   the   Area   Courts   there   were   in   existence   what   was   then   known   as  
Native  Courts.  The   Area   Court   Edict,   1967  created  Area  Courts  and  consequently  replaced  
the  Native  Courts.  By  virtue  of   Section  3  of  the  Area  Court  Edict  1967,  Area  Courts  were  
established  by  Warrant  under  the  hand  of  the  Chief  Judge  of  the  State.  Section   4  provides  
that   Area   Courts   may   be   presided   over   by   a   judge   sitting   alone   or   by   a   judge   sitting   with  
one   or   more   members.   Section  5   of   the   Area   Court   Edict   also   authorises   Area   Courts   to   sit  
with  assessors  who  are  approved  by  the  Chief  Judge.  
  
JURISDICTION  OVER  PERSONS  
Section  15  of  the  Area  Court  Edict  provides  that  the  Court  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  –  
1) Any  person  whose  parents  were  members  of  any  tribe  indigenous  to  some  parts  of  
Africa  and  the  descendants  of  such  a  person.  
2) Any  person  one  of  whose  parents  was  a  member  of  a  tribe  whose  tribe  is  indigenous  
to  some  parts  of  Africa.  
3) Any  person  who  consents  to  be  tried  by  an  Area  Court.  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  OFFENCES  
By   virtue   of   Section   12(2)   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   (CPCL),   Area   Courts   have  
jurisdiction   over   offences   contained   in   Column   7   of   Appendix   A   to   the   CPCL.   Also,   Area  
Courts  will  have  jurisdiction  to  try  offences  where  the  Governor  of  a  State  expressly  confers  
jurisdiction  on  it.  
JURISDICTION  OF  AREA  COURTS  
 
           COURTS   TERMS  OF                         FINE  
IMPRISONMENT   N  
1.  Upper  Area  Court   Unlimited   Unlimited  
2.  Area  Court  Grade  I   5  years   N1,000.00  
3.  Area  Court  Grade  II   3  years   N  600.00  
4.  Area  Court  Grade  III   9  months      N100.00  
 
These  are  the  upper  limits  of  penalties  Area  Courts  can  impose.  
 
PRACTICE  AND  PROCEDURE  AT  AREA  COURTS  
Section   387   of   the   CPCL  provides  that  the  framing  of  a  formal  charge  is  not  necessary  at  
Area  Courts.  Alabi  v  COP.    
Section   6   of   the   Area   Court   Edict   provides   that   Area   Courts   are   not   bound   to   strictly  
observe   the   Rules   of   Evidence   or   Practices   and   Procedure.     Once   the   proceeding   of   an   Area  
Court   is   in   accord   with   substantial   justice,   its   decision   will   not   be   set   aside   on   appeal.   In  
Akiga   v.   Tiv   Native   Authority   (1965),   the   accused   person   was   convicted   despite   the  
admission  of  evidence  of  his  previous  conviction  during  the  trial.  The  Court  of  Appeal  held  
that   though   inadmissible   evidence   was   admitted   contrary   to   the   Rules   of   Evidence,   there  
was  no  miscarriage  of  justice.  
 
However,   in   Jos  Native  Authority  v.  Allah  Na  Gani  (1968),  the   accused   was   convicted   of  
raping   a   seven-­‐year-­‐old   girl.   There   was   no   evidence   of   penetration.   The   only   evidence   at  
the  trial  was  that  the  accused  lay  on  the  girl.  The  evidence  was  not  corroborated  and  the  
accused   was   convicted.   On   appeal,   the   court   held   that   the   admission   of   hearsay   and   a  
conviction   based   on   evidence   which   required   corroboration   was   contrary   to   the   Rules   of  
Evidence.    Consequently,  there  was  a  miscarriage  of  justice.  
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  PARTIES  TO  COUNSEL  AT  AREA  COURTS  
Section   390   of   the   CPCL   and   Section   28   of   the   Area   Court   Edict   both   prohibited   the  
appearance   of   Legal   Practitioners   before   Area   Courts.     However,   these   provisions   have  
been   held   to   be   contrary   to   the   express   provision   of   Section   36(6)(c)   of   the   1999  
Constitution,  which  gives  an  accused  person  the  right  to  defend  himself  personally  or  by  a  
Counsel  of  his  own  choice.  
 
That  was  the  decision  of  the  court  in  Uzodinma   v.   COP   (1982).   The  accused  person  was  
arraigned   before   an   Area   Court.     He   engaged   a   Legal   Practitioner   to   represent   him.   The  
Area  Court  Judge  cited  Section  390  of  the  CPCL  and  ruled  that  the  Legal  Practitioner  had  no  
right   of   audience   in   his   Court.     The   accused   person   was   subsequently   convicted   and   he  
appealed.   The   court   held   that   Section   390   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   (CPCL)   was   in  
conflict  with  Section  36  (6)(c)  of  the  1979  Constitution.  His  conviction  was  set  aside.  
APPEALS  
Any   person   who   is   aggrieved   by   the   decision   of   an   Area   Court   Grades   I,   II   or   III   may   appeal  
to  the  Upper  Area  Court.    A  person  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  the  Upper  Area  Court  may  
appeal  to  the  High  Court.    Those  who  have  a  right  of  appeal  are:  
1. Persons  aggrieved  by  decisions  of  the  Upper  Area  Court.  
2. Area   Court   Inspectors   who   can   appeal   suo   motu,   that   is,   who   can   appeal   on   their  
own  volition  or  upon  the  report  of  an  aggrieved  person.  
 
B. MAGISTRATE  COURTS  
Section   8   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   (CPCL)   creates   four   grades   of   Magistrate  
Courts   in   Northern   Nigeria.     The   courts   and   their   jurisdiction   to   impose   penalties   are   as  
follows:  
 
JURISDICTION  TO  IMPOSE  PENALTIES  
      YEARS   OF   FINE  
S/N   COURTS   GRADES   IMPRISONMENT   N    
1.   CHIEF  MAGISTRATE     5  YEARS   N1,000.00  
COURT  
2.   MAGISTRATE  COURT   GRADE      I   3  YEARS   N600.00  
3.   MAGISTRATE  COURT   GRADE  II   1½  YEARS   N400.00  
4.   MAGISTRATE  COURT   GRADE  III   9  MONTHS   N200.00  
 
Section  8  of  the  CPCL  has  been  amended  in  some  States  in  the  North  to  create  seven  grades  
of  Magistrate  Court.  Kano  and  Plateau  States  are  notable  examples.  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  OFFENCES  
The  jurisdiction  of  Magistrate  Courts  in  the  North  over  offences  are  as  follows:  
For   offences   in   the   Penal   Code,   Column   6   of   Appendix   A   to   the   CPCL   contains   the   list   of  
offences   that   may   be   tried   by   each   grade   of   Magistrate   Court   in   the   North.   However,  
Magistrate  Courts  of  higher  grade  can  also  try  the  offences  listed  for  magistrate  courts  of  
lower  grade.  For  non-­‐Penal  Code  offences:  
 1. Magistrate  Courts  in  the  North  can  also  try  offences  where  the  law  provides  that  the  
offences  can  be  tried  summarily  because  the  Magistrate  Court  is  a  court  of  summary  
trial.      
In  such  a  case,  the  Magistrate  Court  can  impose  the  penalty  prescribed  by  that  law  even  if  
such  penalty  exceeds  the  Magistrate  Court’s  jurisdiction  to  punish  as  stated  in  Appendix  ‘B’  
to  the  CPCL.  
 
2. Magistrate   Courts   can   also   try   offences   where   the   law,   which   created   the   offence  
expressly  confers  jurisdiction  on  Magistrate  Courts.  
 
3. Where   the   law   is   silent   on   jurisdiction   and   the   penalty   for   the   offence   is   not   more  
than   the   jurisdiction   of   the   Magistrate   Courts,   a   Magistrate   Court   can   try   such   an  
offence.      
See  the  case  of  Odiai   V.   Commissioner   of   Police   (1962)   NRNLR   9   and  also  the  case  of  
Aba  v.  COP  (1962)  NNLR  37.  
 
Note  that  the  State  Governor  may,  by  order  in  writing  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Chief  
Judge,   increase   the   jurisdiction   of   any   Magistrate   Court.     Also,   Magistrate   Courts   cannot   try  
any  offence  that  is  punishable  with  the  death  penalty.      
 
CONSECUTIVE  SENTENCES  
If  a  Magistrate  Court  in  the  North  convicts  an  accused  of  more  than  one  offence,  he  must  
sentence   the   accused   on   each   of   the   offences.   If   the   sentences   are   to   run   consecutively,  
Section   24   of   the   CPCL  permits  the  Magistrate  Court  to  exceed  the  limits  of  his  jurisdiction  
to  impose  penalty.  However,  the  Magistrate  cannot  exceed  his  limit  by  more  than  twice  of  
his   power   to   impose   penalty.   In   other   words,   the   sum   total   of   his   consecutive   sentences  
must  not  be  more  than  twice  his  limit.  
 
REFERENCE  TO  HIGHER  COURTS  
If  after  conviction,  a  Magistrate  Court  in  the  North  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  sentence  he  has  
jurisdiction  to  impose  cannot  adequately  punish  the  convicted  person,  he  can  refer  the  case  
to  a  higher  court  for  penalty  alone.  That  is  the  provision  of  Section  257  of  the  CPCL.    The  
court   the   accused   is   referred   cannot   retry   the   case.     Its   duty   is   only   to   impose   a   penalty.   By  
reference  to  higher  court  means  from  Magistrate  Grade  II  to  Grade  I,  to  Senior  Magistrate  
etc.  
STATE  HIGH  COURTS  
The   jurisdiction   of   the   State   High   Courts   is   uniform   nationwide,   the   only   exception   being  
reference   to   the   High   Courts   in   the   North   and   appeals   from   decisions   from   Area   Courts.    
The   State   High   Courts   were   created   by   Section   270   of   the   1999   Constitution.     Section  
272   of   the   same   Constitution   provides   that   the   jurisdiction   of   the   State   High   Courts   is  
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  High  Courts  as  contained  in  Section  251(3)  of  the  
1999  Constitution.  

STATE  HIGH  COURTS  IN  THE  SOUTH  

They  have  jurisdiction  over  the  following  offences:  
1. All  indictable  offences  contained  in  an  information.  
 2. All  non-­‐indictable  offences.  
3. Any  non-­‐indictable  offence  brought  by  complaints.  
4. Appeals  from  decisions  of  Magistrate  Courts.  
 
HIGH  COURTS  IN  THE  NORTH  
They  have  jurisdiction  over  the  following  offences:  
1. All  the  offences  contained  in  Column  Six  of  Appendix  A  to  the  CPCL.  
2. All   offences   in   respect   of   which   jurisdiction   is   expressly   conferred   on   the   High  
Courts.  
3. Appeals  from  decisions  of  Magistrate  Courts.  
4. Appeals  from  decisions  of  Area  Courts.  
 
COURTS  OF  APPELLATE  CRIMINAL  JURISDICTION  
THE  COURT  OF  APPEAL  
This  court  was  originally  established  in  1976  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  Act  1976.    Presently,  
it  is  established   by  Section  237  of  the  1999  Constitution.   The   jurisdiction   of   the   Court   of  
Appeal   to   hear   and   determine   criminal   appeals   from   State   High   Courts   and   Federal   High  
Courts   is   contained   in   Section   240   of   the   1999   Constitution.   That   section   confers  
exclusive  jurisdiction  to  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  respect  of  appeals  from:  
1) Federal  High  Courts.  
2) State  High  Courts.  
3) High  Court  of  the  Federal  Capital  Territory.  
4) Sharia  Court  of  Appeal  of  the  Federal  Capital  Territory.  
5) Sharia  Court  of  Appeal  of  the  States.  
6) Customary  Court  of  Appeal  of  the  FCT.  
7) Customary  Court  of  Appeal  of  the  States.  
8) Courts  martial  and  
9) Other  tribunals  as  may  be  prescribed  by  an  Act  of  the  National  Assembly.  
 
THE  SUPREME  COURT  
This  is  the  apex  court  in  the  land  established  by  Section  230  of  the  1999  Constitution.    It  
hears   and   determines   appeal   from   decisions   of   the   Court   of   Appeal   by   virtue   of   Section  
233  of  the  1999  Constitution.  
 
COURTS  OF  SPECIAL  CRIMINAL  JURISDICTION  
THE  FEDERAL  HIGH  COURT  
The   Federal   High   Court   replaced   the   Federal   Revenue   Court,   which   was   created   in   1973.    
The   jurisdiction   of   the   Federal   High   Court   as   provided   for   in   Section   230   of   the   1979  
Constitution  led  to  a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  the  Federal  High  Court  and  the  State  
High  Courts.    The  attempt  to  resolve  this  conflict  by  the  amendment  of  Section  230  under  
the  Constitution  (Suspension  and  Modification)  Decree  No.  107  of  1993  failed.      
 
However,  under  the  1999  Constitution,  the  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  the  two  courts  
seems  to  have  been  laid  to  rest.  Section  272  of  the  1999  Constitution,  which  confers  
jurisdiction  on  State  High  Courts  states  that  the  jurisdiction  is  subject  to  that  of  the  Federal  
High  Court.    Furthermore,  Section  251  of  the  1999  Constitution,  which  confers  jurisdiction  
on  the  Federal  High  Court  states  that  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  civil  matters  is  exclusive  
although  Section  251(2)  and  (3)  which  confers  criminal  jurisdiction  on  the  Federal  High  
Court  does  not  use  the  word  “exclusive”.  Because  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  High  Courts  
has  been  made  subject  to  that  of  the  Federal  High  Court,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  
criminal  matters  pertaining  to  or  arising  from  the  exclusive  civil  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  
High  Court,  the  Federal  High  Court  also  has  exclusive  jurisdiction.  Section  251(2):  The  
Federal  High  Court  shall  have  and  exercise  jurisdiction  and  powers  in  respect  of  treason,  
treasonable  felony  and  allied  offences.  

Section  251(1)  provides  that  the  Federal  High  Court  shall  have  and  exercise  jurisdiction  to  
the  exclusion  of  any  other  courts  in  civil  causes  and  matters:  
 
Any  matter  or  cause  arising  from  or  pertaining  to:  
1. The  revenue  of  the  Government  of  the  Federation.  
2. Taxation  of  persons  subject  to  Federal  taxation.  
3. Customs  and  Excuse  matters.  
4. Causes   and   matters   connected   with   or   pertaining   to   banking,   banks,   other  
financial   institutions,   including   any   action   between   one   bank   and   another,   any  
action   by   or   against   the   CBN   arising   from   banking,   foreign   exchange,   coinage,  
legal  tender,  letters  of  credit  etc.  Provided  that  this  paragraph  shall  not  apply  to  
any   dispute   between   an   individual   customer   and   his   bank   in   respect   of  
transactions  between  them.  
5. The  operation  of  the  Companies  and  Allied  Matters  Act  (CAMA).  
6. Copyrights,  patents,  designs,  trademarks  and  allied  matters.  
7. Admiralty  matters.  
8. Diplomatic,  consular  and  trade  representation.  
9. Citizenship.  
10. Banking  and  insolvency  
11. Aviation  and  safety  of  aircraft.  
12. Arms,  ammunitions  and  explosives.  
13. Drugs  and  poisons.  
14. Mines  and  minerals.  
15. Weights  and  Measures.  
16. Administration   and   Management   of   the   Federal   Government   or   any   of   its  
agencies.  
17. The   operation   and   interpretation   of   the   Constitution   as   it   affects   the   Federal  
Government  or  any  of  its  agencies.  
18. The  validity  of  Executive  and  administrative  action  by  the  Federal  Government  
or  any  of  its  agencies.  
19. Such   other   matters   in   respect   of   which   the   National   Assembly   may   confer  
jurisdiction  on  the  Federal  High  Court.  
 
By   virtue   of   the   provisions   of   Section   251(3)   of   the   1999   Constitution,   any   criminal  
cause  or  matter  that  arises  from  any  of  the  subjects  listed  above  falls  within  the  exclusive  
criminal   jurisdiction   of   the   Federal   High   Court.   The   Rules   of   Practice   and   Procedure  
(Adjectival  Law)  which  regulates  proceedings  at  the  Federal  High  Court  nationwide  are  the  
Criminal  Procedure  Act,  Laws  of  the  Federation  of  Nigeria  (LFN),  2004.  
 
Territorial  Jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  High  Court  and  the  States  High  Courts  
1. FHC:   There   is   only   one   FHC   in   Nigeria;   others   are   the   administrative   Judicial  
Divisions.  It  has  a  National  jurisdiction.  See  ABIOLA  V.  FRN,  S.  19(1)  of  the  FHC  Act.  
 
2. State   HC:   See   S.   4   of   the   Penal   Code   and   S.   12   (a)   of   the   Criminal   Code   for   the  
territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  as  follows:  
i. Offences  completed  in  a  State  are  triable  by  the  State  alone  
ii. If   an   offence   began   in   one   State   and   was   completed   in   State   B,   both   States  
High   Courts   have   jurisdiction   over   the   offence.   See   HARUNA   V.   THE   STATE  
and  NJOVENS  V.  THE  STATE  
iii. S.   12   (a)   of   the   Criminal   Code   made   it   possible   for   a   State   that   arrested   an  
offender   who   ran   away   from   the   State   of   committing   the   offence   to   try   him  
provided  the  offence  is  punishable  in  the  State.  
 
Sittings  of  the  Courts  
The  Courts  sit  on  juridical  days,  that  is,  from  Mondays  to  Fridays  but  except  public  holidays  
otherwise  the  proceedings  are  null  and  void.  Exception  where  it  will  be  valid  is  when  the  
parties  consented  or  request  for  a  sitting  outside  the  juridical  days.  See  OSOSANMI  V.  COP  
 
JUVENILE  COURTS  
Juvenile   courts   are   established   pursuant   to   the   Children   and   Young   Persons   Laws   of   the  
various  States  of  the  Federation.  Young  persons  are  persons  who  are  less  than  18  years  of  
age  when  they  committed  the  alleged  offence.    In  terms  of  criminal  responsibility:  
1. Children   below   the   age   of   7   years   are   not   criminally   responsible   for   their   act   or  
omissions,  which  constitute  the  crime.  
2. Children  between  the  ages  of  7  and  12  will  only  be  held  criminally  responsible  if  it  is  
established  that  they  know  that  their  act  or  omissions  are  wrong  in  law.  
3. Children   between   the   age   of   13   and   18   are   criminally   responsible   for   their   act   or  
omissions.  
" Children  fall  between  1  to  14  years.  
" Young  persons  fall  between  14  to  18  years.  
 
In   State  v.  Nwabueze  (1980):  the   accused   person   caused   the   death   of   the   deceased   in   the  
course   of   a   fight.   The   accused   was   less   than   12   years   old.     He   was   charged   with   murder.  
However,  evidence  adduced  at  the  trial  did  not  establish  that  the  accused  person  knew  that  
his   act,   which   resulted   in   the   death   of   the   deceased,   was   wrong   in   law.     The   court  
discharged  and  acquitted  the  accused  person.  
 
Juvenile  courts  have  jurisdiction  over  all  cases  involving  children  or  young  persons  except  
in  the  following  circumstances:  
1) Section   8(2)   of   the   CYPL  provides  that  where  a  child  or  young  person  is  charged  
with   an   offence,   which   is   punishable   by   the   death   penalty,   his   trial   shall   be   by   a  
regular  court.    
 2) Section   6(2)   of   the   CYPL  also  provides  that  where  a  juvenile  is  jointly  charged  with  
an  adult,  the  trial  shall  be  by  a  regular  court.  
   
However  in  respect  of  offences  that  are  punishable  with  death  penalty,  a  juvenile  court  can  
conduct   preliminary   inquiry   but   cannot   proceed   to   full   trial   if   a   prima   facie   case   is  
established.  
DETERMINATION  OF  AGE  
Where  the  age  of  an  accused  person  is  essential  for  the  purpose  of  conviction  or  is  relevant  
in  the  determination  of  the  nature  of  sentence  to  be  passed  on  the  accused  person,  a  trial  
court  is  bound  to  conduct  an  inquiry  as  to  the  true  age  of  an  accused  person.  
 
In  order  to  determine  the  age  of  an  accused  person,  the  court  may:  
1) Accept  direct  evidence  of  the  age  of  an  accused  person  such  as  birth  certificate.  
2) Accept  oral  evidence  as  to  the  age  of  the  accused  person  by  the  parents  or  relations.  
3) Order   medical   examination   by   a   Medical   Practitioner   in   a   Government   medical  
institution.  
 
Medical   examination   is   usually   ordered   where   the   court   disbelieves   the   oral   evidence   of  
parents  or  relations  or  where  there  is  conflicting  evidence  of  the  age  of  the  accused  person.      
 
In  the  case  of  R.  v.  Oladimeji  (1964),  the  accused  person  was  charged  for  murder.    At  his  
trial,  his  father  testified  that  he  was  less  than  17  years  old  when  he  committed  the  alleged  
offence.    He  was  convicted.  On  appeal  against  the  conviction,  the  court  appointed  a  Medical  
Commission   to   inquire   into   the   accused   person’s   age.     At   the   Commission,   the   parents  
maintained   that   the   boy   was   16   years   when   he   allegedly   committed   the   offence.     However,  
the  medical  doctor  who  examined  the  boy  18  months  after  the  offence  was  committed  put  
his  age  at  25.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  doctor’s  testimony  was  admissible  and  was  
rightly  acted  upon  by  the  Commission.  
 
Note  that  where  there  is  clear  evidence  before  the  court  as  to  the  age  of  the  accused  person,  
the  need  to  determine  the  age  of  the  accused  person  no  longer  arises.    See  Guobadia   v.   The  
State  (2004)  6  NWLR  (PT.  869)  at  page  360.  
 
FEATURES  OF  A  JUVENILE  COURT  
Section   6(5)   of   the   CYPL   (Lagos   State)   provides   that   Juvenile   Courts   are   not   open   to  
members  of  the  public.    The  only  persons  allowed  in  Juvenile  Courts  are:  
1) Parents   and   relations   of   juvenile,   Counsel,   Legal   Practitioners   and   accredited  
members  of  the  Press.  
2) Section   6(6)   of   the   CYPL  prohibits  the  publication  or  disclosure  of  the  identity  of  
the   juvenile   at   the   trial   except   with   the   leave   of   the   court.     To   publish   the   identity   of  
the  juvenile  is  an  offence  punishable  by  N100  fine.  
3) At   Juvenile   Courts,   regular   court   terms   such   as   “sentenced”,   “guilty”,   “convicted”,  
“accused”  et  cetera  are  not  used.  Use  offender  instaed  
4) Section   12   of   the   CYPL  provides  that  a  juvenile  cannot  be  sentenced  to  a  term  of  
imprisonment   once   he   can   be   suitably   dealt   with   by   any   other   punishment   or  
committed  to  a  remand  home.  
 5) Even   where   a   juvenile   is   in   prison,   he   cannot   be   mixed   with   adult   prisoners.     This   is  
in  order  to  protect  him  from  further  corruption.  
6) Section   368(3)   of   the   CPL   and   Section   272   of   the   CPCL   both   provide   that   any  
person   who   had   not   attained   the   age   of   17   years   at   the   time   the   offence   was  
allegedly  committed  cannot  be  sentenced  to  death.  In  Modupe  v.  The  State  (1988),  
the   Supreme   Court   held   that   if   the   evidence   before   the   court   establishes   that   a  
juvenile  was  guilty  of  a  capital  offence,  it  would  be  wrong  for  any  court  not  only  to  
sentence   him   to   death   but   also   to   even   pronounce   such   a   sentence.       Note,   however,  
that   where   such   a   juvenile   is   convicted   of   a   capital   offence   instead   of   a   death  
sentence,  a  sentence  of  life  imprisonment  would  be  imposed.  
7) Any  juvenile  who  is  found  to  have  committed  a  capital  offence  shall  be  held  in  lawful  
custody  pending  the  pleasure  of  the  Governor.    This  was  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  
Court  in  GUOBADIA  V.  THE  STATE  (SUPRA).  
 
COURTS  MARTIAL  
The   Armed   Forces   Act   CAP   A20   LFN   1993   (as   amended)   consolidated   the   Nigerian  
Army  Act,  the  Nigerian  Navy  Act  and  the  Nigerian  Air  Force  Act.  
 
Section  129  of  the  Armed  Forces  Act,  1993  creates  two  types  of  courts  martial.    They  are:  
1) The  General  Courts  Martial  and  
2) The  Special  Courts  Martial.  
 
1) THE  GENERAL  COURTS  MARTIAL  
See   Section   129,   paragraph   A   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act   (AFA).    This  court  martial  
shall  consist  of:  
1. The  President.  
2. Not  less  than  4  members.  
3. A  waiting  member.  
4. A  Liaison  Officer  and  
5. A  Judge  Advocate.  
 
2) THE  SPECIAL  COURTS  MARTIAL  
See   Section   129;   paragraph   B   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act.     This   Court   shall   be  
constituted  by  the  following  members:  
1. The  President.  
2. Not  less  than  2  members.  
3. A  waiting  member.  
4. A  Liaison  Officer,  and  
5. A  Judge  Advocate.  
 
A  Judge  Advocate  must  be  a  commissioned  officer  that  has  been  qualified  to  practice  Law  in  
Nigeria   for   at   least   3   years.   If   there   is   no   such   person   available,   the   Director   of   Legal  
Services   of   the   particular   service   of   the   Armed   Forces   shall,   upon   the   request   of   the  
convening  officer,  nominate  a  judge  advocate  for  the  court  martial.  The  duty  of  the  Judge  
Advocate  is  to  guide  and  advise  the  Court  Martial  on  the  Rules  of  Evidence  and  Practice  and  
Procedure.     He   does   not   have   a   vote   in   the   decision   of   the   court   martial.   Again,   the   Rules   of  
Practice  and  Procedure  that  is  applicable  to  Courts  Martial  are  the  CPL.  
 
A   person   may   not   be   appointed   a   member   of   a   Court   Martial   unless   he   is   subject   to   Service  
Law   and   has   been   an   officer   for   a   period   of   not   less   than   5   years.   A   waiting   member   is   a  
spare   tyre.     He   is   a   member   who   is   there   waiting   in   case   a   regular   member   is   ill   or  
unavoidably  absent.      
 
The   President   of   a   Court   Martial   shall   not   be   under   the   rank   of   a   Major   or   a   similar   rank   in  
any   of   the   other   services.   Where   it   is   not   possible   to   have   a   Major   as   a   President   of   a   Court  
Martial,  a  Captain  or  the  corresponding  rank  in  any  of  the  services  may  be  appointed.  
 
An   officer   of   any   of   the   services   cannot   be   tried   by   a   Court   Martial   whose   membership  
includes  an  officer  of  a  rank  lower  than  his.    In  Okoro  v.  Nigerian  Army  Council  (2000),  a  
Court   Martial   constituted   by   members   who   included   two   captains   tried   and   convicted   a  
Major.  The  Court  of  Appeal  held  that  by  virtue  of  Section   133   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act,  an  
officer  cannot  be  tried  by  a  Court  Martial  constituted  by  officers  of  a  lower  rank.  
 
In   order   for   a   Court   Martial   to   come   to   a   decision   (judgment),   it   only   requires   the  
attendance   and   votes   of   the   President   and   other   members.     Waiting   member,   Judge  
Advocate   and   Liaison   officers   do   not   have   a   vote.     Therefore,   a   Court   Martial   can   come   to   a  
valid  judgment  in  their  absence.    See  Obisi  v.  Chief  of  Naval  Staff  (2004).      
 
WHO  MAY  CONVENE  A  COURT  MARTIAL  
Section   131   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act  (AFA)  provides  that  only  an  appropriate  superior  
authority  can  convene  a  Court  Martial.    For  the  General  Court  Martial,  any  of  the  following  
are  appropriate  superior  authorities:  
1. The  President.  
2. Chief  of  Defence  Staff.  
3. The  Service  Chiefs.  
4. A  General  Officer  Commanding  or  a  corresponding  command.  
5. A  Brigade  Commander  or  corresponding  Command.  
 
For  the  Special  Courts  Martial,  appropriate  superior  authority  means  any  person  who  has  
authority  to  convene  a  General  Courts  Martial  as  listed  above,  that  is:  
1. The  President.  
2. Chief  of  Defence  Staff.  
3. The  Service  Chiefs.  
4. A  General  Officer  Commanding  or  a  corresponding  command.  
5. A  Brigade  Commander  or  corresponding  Command.  
 
In   special   circumstances   the   senior   officer   of   a   detached   unit   may   be   authorised   by   the  
appropriate   superior   authority   to   convene   a   Court   Martial.   See   Nigerian   Air   Force   v.  
Obiosa  (2003)  4  NWLR  (PT.  810)  233.  
 
DELEGATION  OF  THE  AUTHORITY  TO  CONVENE  A  COURT  MARTIAL  
Contrary  to  the  earlier  Supreme  CT  decision  in  Nigerian  Air  Force  v.  Shekete  (2002),  the  
Supreme   Court   in   Nigerian   Air   Force   v.   Obiosa   (SUPRA)   held   that   the   authority   to  
convene   a   Court   Martial,   General   or   Special,   may   be   delegated   by   appropriate   superior  
authority.     In   order   to   do   this,   the   authority   given   to   the   delegate   must   be   in   writing   and  
must  be  signed  by  the  appropriate  superior  authority.  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  PERSONS  
Section   130   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act   gives   the   Court   Martial   jurisdiction   over   persons  
who  are  subject  to  Service  Law,  that  is,  Members  of  the  Army,  Navy  and  the  Air  Force.    It  
does   not   include   officers   of   the   Police   Force,   NDLEA,   Customs   and   Immigration   and  
NAFDAC.    Note,  however,  that  a  General  Court  Martial  cannot  impose  a  sentence  of  death  
unless  it  consists  of  at  least  7  members.  A  Special  Court  Martial  has  the  same  powers  as  a  
General   Court   Martial   but   where   it   is   constituted   by   only   two   members,   it   cannot   impose   a  
sentence  of  death  or  a  sentence  of  imprisonment  which  exceeds  one  year.      
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  OFFENCES  
Sections  45  to  114  of  the  Armed  Forces  Act  contain  the  list  of  offences  which  can  be  tried  
by  a  Court  Martial.    The  offences  triable  by  a  Court  Martial  are:  
1. Aiding  the  enemy.  
2. Cowardly  behaviour.  
3. Mutiny.  
4. Insubordination.  
5. Absence  from  duty.  
6. Malingering  and  drunkenness.  
7. Navigation  and  flying  offences.  
8. Sodomy.  
9. Sexual  relationship  with  the  spouse  of  a  Service  personnel.  
10. Rape  and  canal  knowledge.  
11. Irregular  arrests  and  confinement.  
12. Disgraceful  conduct.  
13. Misconduct  in  action,  etc.  
 
The   Civil   offences   triable   by   a   Court   Martial   are   the   regular   criminal   offences   in   the   civil  
society   such   as   assault,   manslaughter,   robbery,   extortion   etc.     If   a   serving   officer   is   tried   by  
a  Court  Martial  for  a  civil  offence,  the  officer  can  still  be  tried  for  the  same  offence  by  the  
regular   courts.   However,   in   imposing   sentence,   the   regular   court   shall   take   into  
consideration   the   sentence   already   passed   by   the   Court   Martial.   On   the   contrary,   if   a  
regular   court   tries   a   person   who   is   subject   to   service   law   for   a   civil   offence,   the   Court  
Martial  can  no  longer  try  the  officer  for  the  same  offence.  The  decision  or  verdict  of  a  Court  
Martial  is  arrived  at  by  a  simple  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Court.  Note  that  the  Judge  
Advocate,  the  waiting  member  and  the  liaison  officer  do  not  have  the  right  to  vote.  
 
In   the   case   of   equality   of   votes,   that   is,   where   there   is   tie,   the   accused   persons   shall   be  
acquitted.   Any   death   sentence   passed   by   a   Court   Martial   cannot   be   executed   except   with  
the   approval   of   the   President   and   Commander-­‐in-­‐Chief   of   the   Armed   Forces.   Any   other  
sentence   of   a   Court   Martial   are   subject   to   confirmation   by   the   appropriate   superior  
authority  who  convened  the  Court  Martial.  
 
APPEALS  
Previously,   appeals   against   the   decision   of   a   Court   Martial   went   to   the   Armed   Forces  
Appeal  Disciplinary  Committee  but  presently  any  person  who  is  aggrieved  by  the  decision  
of  a  Court  Martial  can  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeal.  Nigeria  Air  Force  v  Shekete  (supra)  
 
TIME  LIMIT  FOR  TRIAL  UNDER  THE  ARMED  FORCES  ACT  
Section   169(2)   of   the   Armed   Forces   Act   provides   that   if   a   retired   officer   of   any   of   the  
Armed   Forces   is   not   tried   within   3   months   after   his   retirement,   the   Court   Martial   can   no  
longer  try  him:  Nigerian   Air   Force   v.   Obiosa.  That  means  the  offences  would  be  statute  
barred.  However,  there  are  exceptions.  
1. If   the   officer   committed   a   civil   offence   outside   Nigeria,   he   can,   with   the   consent   of  
the  Attorney  General,  be  tried  for  the  offence  even  after  3  months  of  his  retirement.  
2. With   respect   to   offence   of   mutiny   or   failure   to   suppress   mutiny   an   officer   can   be  
tried  at  any  time  after  retirement.  
3. A  retired  officer  can  be  tried  for  the  offence  of  secession,  as  it  has  no  time  limit.  
 
OTHER  TRIBUNALS  
Previously,   we   had   seen   tribunals   try   criminal   offences.     They   try   particular   class   or  
persons   or   types   of   offences.   The   rationale   for   their   establishment   was   the   need   for  
exigency  and  to  promote  dispensation  of  justice.  These  are:  
1) Failed  Banks  Tribunal.  
2) Currency  and  Miscellaneous  Offences  Tribunal  (CMOT),  etc.  
 
All   these   tribunals   have   since   been   abolished   by   the   Tribunals   (Certain   Consequential)  
Amendment  Act,  1999.    The  only  ones  left  in  existence  now  are  the  Robbery  and  Firearms  
Tribunal,   Civil   Disturbances   Tribunal   and   Treason   and   Treasonable   Felony   Tribunal.   The  
Rule   of   Practice   and   Procedure   applicable   to   all   Tribunals   is   the   CPL,   that   is,   Criminal  
Procedure  Act.  
 
THE  CORONERS  COURT  
The  Coroners  Court  is  a  Court  of  Inquest.  It  is  not  a  trial  court.  Therefore,  it  is  not  a  court  of  
law.   There   are   Coroners   Laws   of   the   various   States   of   the   Federation.   These   laws   authorise  
a   Coroner   to   conduct   an   Inquest   into   the   cause   of   death   of   a   person   where   death   is   sudden  
and  unnatural  or  where  death  occurs  in  a  public  place.    Public  place  includes:  
(i) Police  custody.  
(ii) A  prison.  
(iii) A  lunatic  asylum  or    
(iv) Anywhere  a  public  execution  takes  place.  
Where  death  occurs  in  any  of  these  places  mentioned,  the  Coroners  Inquest  is  mandatory.    
The   Coroner   is   usually   a   Magistrate   within   whose   jurisdiction   the   body   of   the   deceased  
person   is   found.   However,   the   Attorney   General   may,   by   notice   published   in   the   State  
Gazette,   appoint   any   fit   person   to   conduct   an   Inquest.     See   Sections   3   and   7   of   the  
Coroners   Laws   of   Lagos   e.g.   inquest   into   cause   of   death   of   collapse   of   bio;domg   at  
Synagogue  church    
 
Section  25  of  the  Coroners  Laws  of  Lagos  State  states  that  the  purpose  of  an  Inquest  is  to  
determine  the  identity  of  the  deceased  and  the  cause  of  death.      
 
The   Coroner   may   conduct   an   Inquest   on   any   day   including   Sunday   or   public   holidays.   Note  
also  that  where  the  Coroner  considers  it  expedient,  he  may  hold  an  Inquest  in  private  but  
he  must  record  his  reasons  for  holding  it  in  private.      
 
The   Coroner   Court   may   take   evidence   on   Oath   but   it   is   not   bound   by   the   Rules   of   Evidence  
Act.    He  may  also  issue  summons  or  other  processes  as  are  contained  in  the  Evidence  Act.  
 
Any   person   who   testifies   before   a   Coroner   Court   is   not   bound   to   answer   any   question   if   he  
is  of  the  opinion  that  his  answer  may  incriminate  him.    The  Coroner  may  also  take  evidence  
of  a  sick  person  from  his  sick  bed  or  he  may  direct  another  Magistrate  in  the  jurisdiction  
where  the  person  is  sick  to  take  such  evidence  and  forward  it  to  him  under  Section   28   of  
the   Coroners   Laws,   Lagos   State.     The   Coroner   shall   give   a   verdict   at   the   end   of   the  
Inquest.    His  verdict  is  subject  to  review  by  the  High  Courts.  
   
Once  a  court  is  informed  that  criminal  proceedings  have  been  or  is  about  to  be  instituted  
against  any  person  in  respect  of  a  deceased  person,  the  Coroner  must  stop  the  Inquest  until  
the   trial   is   concluded.     That   was   the   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   Adepetu   v.   State  
(1998).  
 
THE  PURPOSE  OF  AN  INQUEST  
The  purpose  of  an  Inquest  is  not  to  determine  guilt.    Therefore,  criminal  charges  may  not  
necessarily   follow   an   Inquest.     However,   where   the   verdict   of   a   Coroner   necessitates,   the  
Attorney   General   may   institute   criminal   proceedings.   Note   that   the   Coroners   Court   is   not   a  
court   of   trial.     Therefore,   the   Attorney   General   cannot   enter   a   nolle   prosequi   before   a  
Coroners  Court.  
 
LIMITATION  OF  ACTION  
The   general   rule   is   that   there   is   no   limitation   of   action   or   time   limit   within   which   to  
institute  criminal  actions  against  offenders.  
Exceptions  where  time  is  of  the  essence  otherwise  the  action  will  become  statute  bar  are  
in  the  following:  
1. Treason  and  treasonable  felony,  to  be  prosecuted  within  2  years  
2. Sedition,  within  6  months.  See  S.  52  (1)  (c)  of  the  Criminal  Code  
3. Custom   offences,   within   7   years.   See   S.   176   (3)   of   the   Customs   and   Excise  
Management  Act.  
4. Carnal  knowledge  of  a  girl  under  16,  within  2  months  
5. Military  offences  to  be  tried  within  3  months  if  the  offender  is  out  of  service.  
See  OLATUNJI  V.  STATE  
 
NB:  
S.   2   of   the   Public   Officers   Protection   Act  only  protects  public  officers  in  civil  trials  and  
does  not  apply  to  criminal  trials.  See  YABUGBE  V.  COP    
 
THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRIMINAL  COURT  (ICC)  
1.3. JURISDICTION  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRIMINAL  COURT  
Established  by  the  ROME  STATUTE/International  Criminal  Court  Statute  adopted  in  a  UN  
diplomatic  conference  in  July  1999.  Nigeria  ratified  the  statute  on  the20th  April  2002  
The  permanent  seat  of  the  ICC  is  at  the  HAGUE  in  Netherlands-­‐ART  3(3)  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  OFFENCES  –ART.  5(1)  
Hears  only  serious  violations  of  International  human  Rights  laws.  
Examples  are:  
a.   Genocide      
(b)   Crimes  against  humanity    
(c)   War  crimes  
d.   Aggression:     This   cannot   be   invoked   until   2017   or   when   20   state   parties   have  
signed.  
 
NOTE-­  ICC  cannot  execute  a  warrant  of  arrest  against  a  NON  STATE  PARTY  e.g.  USA,  China  
 
ICC   crimes   do   not   apply   retroactively   it   has   jurisdiction   over   crimes   committed   ON   or  
AFTER  1stjuly  2002.  ICC  crimes  are  not  subject  to  statute  of  limitations-­‐Art  29  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  PERSONS  
Applies  to  persons  committing  serious  crimes  of  international  concern-­‐ART  1  
Can  only  try  persons  not  states-­‐Art  25.  
NB-­  the  doctrine  of  state  immunity  does  not  apply-­‐Article  27  
Provides  for  Individual  responsibility-­‐Art  25  
 
JURISDICTION  OVER  MINORS  
Does   not   exercise   jurisdiction   over   minors.   The   ICC   exercises   jurisdiction   over   persons  
OVER  18  years-­‐Article  26  
 
JURISDICTION  OF  ICC  IMPOSE  PUNISHMENT-­  Art  77  
-­‐Cannot  impose  death  penalty  
-­‐Life  imprisonment  when  justified  
 
-­‐Maximum  of  30  years  imprisonment  
-­‐Additional  fine  
-­‐Order  of  forfeiture  without  prejudice  to  bonafide  purchasers  
 
APPEALS  –Appeals  Chamber-­  Art  39  
 
RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  ICC  AND  NATIONAL  COURTS  
-­‐ICC  is  complimentary  to  national  criminal  jurisdictions-­‐ART  1  
-­‐ICC  is  a  court  of  LAST  RESORT.  It  will  only  act  where  state  parties  are  UNABLE  or  
UNWILLING  TO  PROSECUTE-­‐  ART  17  
 
HOW  IS  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  ICC  INITIATED?  
a. A  state  party  will  lodge  a  complaint  with  the  prosecutor-­    Art  14  (UN  charter)  
b. Referral  from  the  UN  security  council  
c. Prosecutor  may  initiate  investigation  on  its  own-­‐Article  15  
d. Where  the  alleged  crime  was  committed  on  the  territory  of  a  state  party  (or  where  
the  state  on  whose  territory  the  crime  was  committed  has  accepted  the  jurisdiction  
of  the  court  
 
 
4.4    DETERMINATION  VENUE  OF  COURTS  IN  NIGERIA  AND  ITS  RELAVANCE  
RELEVANCE-­  To  know  the  appropriate  judicial  division/  magisterial  district  to  institute  a  
criminal  action.  
 
DETERMINATION  OF  VENUE-­  
• Subject  matter  of  the  dispute-­‐OLOWU   V.   NIG.   ARMY(failure   to   perform   military  
duty  tried  at  military  tribunal).  
• Judicial  division  or  magisterial  district  of  a  state  in  Nigeria    
 
WHEN   CAN   AN   ACTION   BE   COMMENCED   IN   A   STATE   HIGH   COURT/   MAGISTRATE  
COURT?  
An  action  may  be  commenced  in  a  judicial  division  or  magisterial  district  of  a  state  as  
follows;  
• Where  the  offence  was  wholly  or  partly  committed-­‐    
IBORI  V.  FRN  
• Where  a  consequence  of  the  offence  has  occurred  
• Where  property  or  person  (subject  matter)  has  been  transported  or  found  
-­‐  S.64  CPL;  SECTION  134  CPCL;  SECTION  58  ACJL,  
• Where  venue  is  uncertain,  any  of  the  places  it  was  committed  can  be  the  venue.  
s64(d)  CPL;  s135  CPCL;  S.58(d)  ACJL,  George  v.  FRN  (2011)  10  NWLR  (pt  1254)  
P.  1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WEEK  5:  SUMMONS,  ARREST  AND  SEARCHES  
A  Magistrate  may  by  summons  or  warrant  of  arrest  compel  the  attendance  in  court  of  any  
person  accused  of  having  committed  an  offence  in  any  place  within  or  outside  Nigeria  
provided  the  offence  is  triable  in  the  state:  s79  CPL,  47(1)  CPCLL,  16  ACJL  and  s.  ?  ACJA.  
Summons  and  warrant  of  arrest  are  issued  based  on  complaint  made  by  any  person  
(usually  a  police  officer)  showing  that  the  person  named  therein  is  reasonably  suspected  to  
have  committed  an  offence.  The  magistrate  has  the  discretion  to  issue  or  not  to  issue.  
Where  a  magistrate  refuses  to  issue,  he  must  give  reasons:  s154(1)  CPCL  
MODES  OF  SECURING  THE  ATTENDANCE  OF  THE  ACCUSED  PERSON  
This   can   be   done   in   three   (3)   main   ways:   summons;   by   arrest   with   warrant;   by   arrest  
without  warrant  
 
SUMMONS  
A   summons   is   a   document   issued   by   the   court   directing   the   person   named   therein   to  
appear   in   court   at   a   stipulated   date   and   time   to   answer   to   the   charge   or   allegation   or  
complaint  against  him.  
 
WHO  CAN  ISSUE  SUMMONS?  
• A  Magistrate  
• A  Judge  
• A  Justice  of  Peace  (this  is  only  provided  for  under  the  CPCLL  s47)  
• See  s79  CPL,  s82  ACJL  
WHEN  IS  A  SUMMONS  ISSUED  
• Minor  offences  
• Where  the  person  is  not  likely  to  refuse  to  attend  the  court  or  police  station  
• Offences  in  Column  4  Appendix  A  to  the  CPCLL  
 
CONTENTS  OF  A  SUMMONS  
1.   A  concise  statement  of  the  alleged  offence.  
2.   The  name  of  the  individual  charged  with  the  alleged  offence.  
3.   An  invitation  to  the  named  individual  to  attend  court  or  police  station  at  a  particular  
date   or   time   being   NOT   LESS   THAN   FORTY   EIGHT   HOURS   after   the   service   of   the  
summons  on  him.  
4.   The  date  the  summons  was  issued.  
5.   The  signature  of  the  issuing  authority  
-­‐S.  83&  87  CPL,  s.47(2)  CPCLL,  S.79&85  ACJL,  s.  ?  ACJA  
NB-­‐In  CPL  states’  magistrate  has  a  discretion  to  issue  a  summons  but  he  must  give  reasons-­‐
S.81  CPL  
• It   has   been   held   in   Goodman   v   Ebans   Ltd   that   the   use   of   a   rubber   stamped  
signature  is  a  sufficient  compliance  with  requirement  for  signature  
• Summons  must  be  in  duplicate  copy-­‐  S.85  ACJL  
RATIONALE-­‐  This  is  to  serve  as  evidence  of  service.  
 
WHO  CAN  SERVE  A  SUMMONS?  
1. Police  officer;    
2. Officer  of  the  court;    
3. Authorised  public  servant  
S.88  CPL;  S.48  CPCLL;  S.86  ACJL,  s.  ?  ACJA  
 
DAYS  AND  TIME  FOR  SERVICE  OF  SUMMONS-­  
 S.82  CPL  
 S.81  ACJL  
• It  must  be  served  within  the  hours  of  8am-­6pm.-­‐(LAGOS  ONLY)  
• A   summons   may   be   issued   or   served   on   any   day   including   a   Sunday   or   Public  
Holiday.  
• Summons   served/issued   on   SUNDAY   and   PUBLIC   HOLIDAY   take   effect   from   next  
working  day-­‐S.81(B)  ACJL.  
NB-­DOES  NOT  APPLY  IN  THE  NORTH-­  CPCLL  IS  SILENT  on  this  
 
MODES  OF  SERVING  SUMMONS  
A-­ PERSONAL  SERVICE  is  required:  S.  89  CPL;  S.49(1)  CPCL;  S.  87  ACJL;    
 
SUMMONS  MUST  BE  SERVED  PERSONALLY  ON;  
a-­ INDIVIDUALS  -­‐s89(a)CPL;  49(1)CPCLL;  s.87(a)  ACJL;  s.?  ACJA  
b-­‐ Firms  or  corporations  can  be  served  through  a    
1. SECRETARY  
2. MANAGER  
3. PRINCIPAL  OFFICER  at  the  company’s  premises-­  section  50(1)  CPCL.  
Firms  can  be  served  through    
1. one  of  the  PARTNERS  
2. SECRETARY/DIRECTOR  
3. CHIEF  AGENT    
4. or  by  leaving  it  at  the  premises.-­  
S.89(b)  CPL;  S.87(b)ACJL    
5. Local  government  council  (in  accordance  to  LG  law)  
-­  S.89(c)CPL;  S.51CPCLL;  S.87(c)ACJL;  s.?  ACJA  
6. Government  employee-­(sent  to  HOD)-­  
S.91  CPL;  S.89  ACJL  
 
PROOF  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICE  
1. An  individual  who  is  personally  served  with  a  summons  to  appear  must  acknowledge  
receipt  on  the  back  of  the  duplicate  copy  of  the  summons:  s94  CPL,  S.  49(2)  CPCL,  S.  
92  ACJL  
2. NB-­  Any  person  refusing  to  endorse  may  be  arrested  and  is  liable  to  a  maximum  
of  14DAYS  imprisonment:  S.93  ACJL;  S.95  ACJL.  
3. However   persons   who   cannot   sign   or   make   their   mark   must   be   served   in   the   presence  
of  a  witness  –  S.  53  CPCL(  IIITERATES  &  BLIND  PERSONS)(NORTH  ONLY)  
 
B-­SUBSTITUTED  SERVICE  
Can   only   be   done   on   two   conditions-­‐   where   personal   service   is   not   possible   and   with   leave  
of  court.  
 
MODES  OF  SUBSTITUTED  SERVICE    
Section  90  CPL  &  88  ACJL  prescribes  the  various  substituted  modes  of  service  
a.   Pasting   of   the   summons   on   a   conspicuous   part   of   the   last   known   address   of   the  
individual  named  in  the  summons  
NOTE-­S.   52   CPCL   allows   for   substituted   service   by   leaving   a   duplicate   copy   of   the  
summons  with  an  adult  male  member  of  the  individual’s  family.(NORTH  ONLY)  
 
PROOF  OF  SUBSTITUTED  SERVICE  
This  is  usually  by  Affidavit  or  declaration  stating  the  reasons  for  the  substituted  service  and  
how  it  was  done-­‐S.  55  CPCL.    
 
In  the  SOUTH  the  person  effecting  service  must  endorse  particulars  of  method  of  service  on  
the  duplicate:  S.94  CPL;  S.92  ACJL    
 
NB-­‐  Where  person  serving  summons  is  absent  at  hearing,  endorsement  on  a  duplicate  and  
affidavit  show  date  and  method  of  effecting  service  is  sufficient  proof-­‐s.90  ACJL;S.93  CPL  
 
LIFE  SPAN  OF  A  SUMMONS  
S.  103  CPL,  S.  383  CPCL;  S.100  ACJL  
• Once  a  summons  is  issued,  it  remains  valid  and  subsisting  until  it  is  CANCELLED  or  
EXECUTED.  
• It   is   not   invalidated   by   the   DEATH,   RETIREMENT,   REMOVAL   FROM   OFFICE,  
PROMOTION  OR  LOSS  OF  JURISDICTION  by  the  issuing  authority.  
 
CONSEQUENCES  OF  DISOBEYING  SUMMONS  
 A   warrant   of   arrest   may   be   issued   to   compel   the   individual   to   appear   and   answer   to   the  
alleged  offence:  S.  96  CPL;  S.70CPCL;  S.94  ACJL;    
 
SERVICE  OF  SUMMONS  OUTSIDE  A  JUDICIAL  DIVISION/DISTRICT  OF  ISSUE  
This  will  be  done  by  sending  a  duplicate  of  the  summons  to  the  court  within  the  division  
where  the  offender  resides:  S.92  CPL;  S.54  CPCL;  S.91  ACJL  
 
SERVICE  AND  EXECUTION  OF  A  SUMMONS  OUTSIDE  THE  STATE  OF  ISSUE  
SECTION  478  CPL;    S.361  ACJL  
Summons  (other  than  summons  to  compel  attendance  of  a  witness)  issued  in  one  state  may  
be   served   on   the   person   to   whom   it   is   addressed   in   another   state.     This   applies   only   to  
summons  on  information  or  complaint.  
 
The   endorsement   of   a   Magistrate   in   the   state   of   execution   is   not   required.   The   service   of  
such   summons   in   another   state   follows   the   same   process   as   its   execution   in   the   state   in  
which  the  summons  was  issued.  The  person  on  whom  the  summons  is  served  must  endorse  
the  duplicate  copy,  acknowledging  service.  No  provision  in  CPCL  
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  TO  ENDORSE  SUMMONS  
  NOTE-­‐Failure   to   do   so   is   punishable   by   detention   in   custody   or   prison   for   a   Period   Not  
Exceeding  14  Days  as  a  court  deems  fit.  
 
Where  service  is  by  substituted  method,  the  person  who  made  such  service  shall  endorse  
the  particulars  of  such  substituted  method  on  the  duplicate  copy.  
 
TAKE  NOTE:     All   other   summons   (e.g.   witnesses   summons   etc)   can   only   be   served   outside  
the  state  of  issue  by  leave  of  court:  S.  479  CPL;  S  362  ACJL  
 
ARREST  WITH  WARRANT    
WHEN  CAN  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  BE  ISSUED?  
 
a.  Where  the  Law  creating  the  offence  states  that  an  offender  cannot  be  arrested  without  
warrant.  
b.  Where  a  summons  is  disobeyed.  
c.  Where  a  serious  offence  is  alleged  against  the  offender  
A   warrant   of   arrest   is   an   authority   directed   to   a   police   officer   or   any   other   person   to   arrest  
an  offender:  s25&27  CPL,  s58  CPCL,  s22  ACJL    
WHO  CAN  ISSUE  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
Under  the  CPL  only  a  Magistrate  or  a  judge,  may  issue  a  warrant  of  arrest  –  S.  22(1)  CPL  &  
s23  ACJL  
Under   the   CPCL,   in   addition   to   a   magistrate   or   judge,   a   Justice   of   the   Peace   can   also   issue   a  
warrant  of  arrest:  S.  56(1)  CPCL.  
 
NOTE(EXAMS)POLICE  OFFICER  CANNOT  ISSUE  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST.  
 
ISSUANCE  OF  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
• A  warrant  of  arrest  can  only  be  issued  where  there  is  a  COMPLAINT   ON   OATH   that                                                        
the   person   therein   is   suspected   to   have   committed   an   offence:   s22(1)   CPL,  
s56(1)  CPCL,  s23  ACJL,    
NB-­allegations  in  a  letter  not  sufficient-­  Ikonne  v.COP  (1986)  
• Complaint  must  be  made  by  the    
a. complainant  himself  or  
b.  by  a  material  witness.-­‐  
S.23  CPL;  S.  23  ACJL  
• The  complaint  on  oath  shall  be  made  to  a  Judge  or  Magistrate  sitting  in  his  capacity  
as   a   Judge   or   Magistrate-­‐Ikonne   v.   C.O.P   (a   Judge   issued   a   warrant   acting   in   his  
capacity   as   a   Chairman   of   a   Judicial   Commission   of   Inquiry.   It   was   quashed   on  
APPEAL)  
NB-­In   the   north   (CPCL),   the   complaint   need   not   be   under   oath.   Can   be   issued   once  
complaint  discloses  an  offence    
 
NB-­‐A   magistrate   can   lawfully   issue   a   warrant   of   arrest   irrespective   of   the   fact   that   he  
lacks  jurisdiction  to  try  the  alleged  offender  for  the  offence.  
==#     An   Alkali   Court/Area   Court   CANNOT   issue   a   warrant   of   arrest   if   the   warrant   is   to   be  
served  in  CPL  states–  COP  V.  APAMPA  
  
CONTENTS  OF  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
1.  Concise  statement  of  the  alleged  offence.  
2.  Name  of  the  individual  charged  with  the  alleged  offence.  
3.  Order  directing  the  police  or  person  executing  the  warrant  to  arrest  the  offender  
4.  Date  of  issue  
5.  Signature  of  the  issuing  authority.  
6.  A  warrant  of  arrest  must  be  in  duplicate  copy.  
ACRONYM-­‐  CNODSD  -­‐  Sections  22  CPL,  s56  CPCL,  s22  ACJL    
 
DAY/TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  ISSUE  AND  EXECUTION  OF  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
A  warrant  of  arrest  may  be  issued  or  executed  on  any  day  including  a  Sunday  or  Public  
Holiday  and  anywhere.–  S.24&28  CPL;  s63  CPCL;  S.24&27ACJL  
PERSONS  WHO  CAN  EXECUTE  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST-­S.25  CPL/ACJL;  S.58  CPCL  
1.  Any  police  officer-­  
2.  May  be  directed  to  all  police  officers  
 
PLACES  WHERE  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  CANNOT  BE  EXECUTED  
1.  A  warrant  of  arrest  cannot  be  executed  in  a  court  room  while  the  court  is  sitting  –  
S.28(2)CPL  ;S.27(2)ACJL;  NB-­CPCL  is  silent  
2.   In   a   legislative   house   while   in   session   EXCEPT   with   the   permission   of   the   person  
presiding   e.g.   Speaker   of   the   House   of   Representatives-­‐Tony   Momoh   v.   Senate   of  
National  Assembly  &  2  ors;  s31  Legislative  Houses  (Powers  and  Privileges)  Act  2004    
 
MODE  OF  EXECUTION  OF  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
The   Police   Officer   or   any   person   executing   the   warrant   of   arrest   must   disclose   the  
substance   of   the   warrant   to   the   suspect   and   the   warrant   to   the   offender   at   the   time   of  
arrest-­  S.  28  (3)  CPL;  ;S.60  CPCL;  S.27(3)  ACJL  
EXCEPTION-­reasonable  ground  for  non  disclosure  (ESCAPE/RESISTANCE/RESCUE)  
 
Where  the  warrant  of  arrest  is  not  immediately  available  at  the  time  of  arrest,  the  officer  
may   still   arrest   the   offender   but   must   disclose   the   existence   of   the   warrant   to   the  
arrested  person,  and  thereafter  show  the  warrant  to  the  person  as  soon  as  practicable.  
S  29  CPL;  S.  61  CPCL;  S,28  ACJL.  
 
Accused  shall  be  informed  of  the  offence  by  the  police  when  arrested  unless  caught  in  the  
middle  of  the  act  or  chased  immediately  after  the  act:  s5  CPL;  s38  CPCL  

LIFESPAN  OF  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  

A  warrant  of  arrest  once  issued,  remains  valid  and  subsisting  until  executed  or  cancelled  
by   the   issuing   authority:   S.   25(2)   CPL/ACJL;   S.56   (2)   CPCL.   The   death,   resignation,  
retirement,  promotion  or  transfer  of  the  judge  who  issued  it  does  not  affect  its  validity.  
 
NOTE-­‐However,  once  a  warrant  of  arrest  has  been  executed,  the  warrant  expires  thus,  can  
no  longer  be  used  to  make  another  arrest,  not  even  the  same  person  earlier  arrested-­‐    
R.  v.  Akinyanju  (1959).  
  
QUESTION-­Prudence   was   arrested   with   a   warrant   and   the   AG   entered   Nolle   on   her   behalf.  
she   was   later   rearrested   with   the   same   warrant.   Comment?   ANS-­this   was   wrong.   She   must  
be  rearrested  with  a  new  warrant.  
 
EXECUTION  OF  WARRANT  OUTSIDE  THE  DISTRICT  OF  ISSUE  
Where  a  warrant  of  arrest  executed  outside  the  district  of  issue  but  within  the  same  state  
is  not  endorsed  with  bail;  the  arrested  person  must  be  taken  to  a  competent  court  within  
the   district   where   he   was   arrested.   The   court   will   then   direct   his   removal   to   the   court  
which  issued  the  warrant  of  arrest  –  S.  31  CPL;  S.64CPCL;  S.30  ACJL;  
   
NOTE-­However,  in  the  North,  before  a  warrant  of  arrest  is  executed  outside  the  district  of  
issue,   a   Court   in   the   district   where   the   offender   is   to   be   found   must  endorse   it,   before   it   is  
executed  on  the  offender-­  Section  66  CPCL  
 
CONSEQUENCES  OF  DISOBEYING  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  (NORTH  ONLY)  
A-­PUBLIC  SUMMONS-­    
SECTION  67  CPCL  
• This  is  issued  by  a  Judge  of  the  High  Court  where  there  is  evidence  showing  that  a  
person  against  whom  warrant  of  arrest  was  issued  has  
a. ABSCONDED  or  
b. is  CONCEALING  himself  in  order  to  evade  service.      
• The   Judge   may   publish   a   public   summons   in   writing   requiring   the   person   to   appear  
at  a  specified  date  and  time,  within  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  publication.  
 
HOW  A  PUBLIC  SUMMONS  IS  PUBLISHED  /EXECUTED  
a.   By   reading   it   orally   in   a   conspicuous   part   of   the   town   or   village   where   the   alleged  
offender  resides  e.g.  town  hall,  market  place  etc.  
b.   Pasting  of  the  summons  on  a  conspicuous  part  of  the  alleged  offender’s  residence    
c.   By  affixing  it  to  a  conspicuous  part  of  the  High  Court  building  such  as  a  door  or  notice  
board.  
 
B-­BENCH   WARRANT-­S.96   CPL:   If  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the  accused  has  been  served  
with  a  summons  and  the  accused  does  not  appear  at  the  time  and  place  appointed  by  the  
summons  and  his  personal  attendance  has  not  been  dispensed  with  under  section  100  of  
the   Act,   the   court   may   issue   a   warrant   to   apprehend   him   and   cause   him   to   be   brought  
before  such  court.  
 
NB:  a  warrant  of  arrest  may  be  endorsed  with  bail  (except  for  a  capital  offence):  s31  CPL;    
s64  CPCL  
 
EXECUTION  OF  A  WARRANT  OF  ARREST  OUTSIDE  THE  STATE  OF  ISSUE  (nationwide)  
1.   A   Police   officer   is   to   take   the   warrant   for   endorsement   (by   a   Court   having   jurisdiction   in  
the  executing  State    
2.  The  Judge  or  Magistrate  in  the  executing  State  before  endorsing  it  MUST  satisfy  himself  
that:    
 a. It  was  issued  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  
b. It  is  for  an  offence  known  to  Law  in  the  issuing  State.    
 
NOTE-­‐The  Court  will  refuse  to  endorse  the  warrant  if  unsatisfied  on  the  above  points.    
COP  V.  APAMPA.    
NOTE-­police  officer  has  sufficient  authority  to  execute  after  endorsement-­‐  
S.482(2)CPL;372(2)  ACJL  
4..  The  endorsing  Court  upon  arrest  of  the  person  may    
a.  Order  the  discharge  of  the  offender  if  the  offence  is  not  known  to  law  in  issuing  state  
b.  Approve  or  refuse  bail  bond  and  then  forward  the  arrested  person  to  the  issuing  Court  -­‐  
S.482(3)  CPL  &  s30  ACJL  
NB-­‐endorsement  is  a  MINISTERIAL  act  while  making  of  orders  is  a  JUDICIAL  ACT-­‐
Metropolitan  Police  Commissioner  v.  Hammond  S.  482  (1)  of  the  CPL,  S.  65-­66  of  the  
CPCL,  S.  365  (1)  of  the  ACJL,  R  V.  OLOWU,  COP  V.  APAMPA        
 
NB  .S.  7(b)  Criminal  Procedure  (Northern  Region)  Act  1960  states  that  the  provision  of  
S.  482  CPL  shall  apply  to  the  Northern  States.  
 
QUERY-­does  the  endorsing  magistrate  require  evidence.  
ANS:  Yes  during  judicial  review  of  an  order.  
 
HOW  TO  MAKE  ARREST  
• An   arrest   can   be   made   by   not   only   using   words   but   touch   or   confine   the   body   of   the  
person  to  be  arrested:  s3  CPL;  s1  ACJL  
• NB:  that  except  the  person  to  be  arrested  wants  to  escape  or  resist  arrest,  the  police  
shall  not  handcuff,  chain  or  beat  the  person  to  be  arrested:  s4  CPL;  s2  ACJL  
• Where  the  offence  is  unknown  to  law,  the  offender  shall  be  discharged  
 
ARREST  WITHOUT  WARRANT  
If  a  person  is  suspected  to  have  committed  an  offence,  he  may  be  arrested  by:    
i.  A  Police  Officer,  
ii.  A  Judicial  Officer,    
iii.  A  Justice  of  the  Peace  (North)  
iv.  A  Private  Person  
without  warrant  
 
A-­THE  POLICE    
SECTIONS  10,  11  &  55  CPL;    
S.  26  CPCL,  S.  10  ACJL;  S.  24  Police  Act;  
a.   Person   against   whom   he   suspects   upon   reasonable   grounds   of   having   committed   an  
indictable  offence  (SUBJECT  TO  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  LAW)  
b.   Any  person  who  commits  any  offence  in  his  presence.  
c.   Any  person  who  obstructs  a  police  officer  while  in  the  execution  of  his  duty,  or  who  
has  escaped  or  attempts  to  escape  or  attempts  to  escape  from  lawful  custody.  
d.   Any  person  in  possession  of  anything  reasonably  suspected  to  be  stolen  property    
e.   Any   person   whom   he   suspects   upon   reasonable   grounds   to   commit   an   offence  
punishable  in  Nigeria  outside  the  country.  
f.   Any   person   having   in   his   possession   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐any   instrument   of   house   breaking  
without  lawful  excuse.  
g.   Any   person   against   whom   a   warrant   of   arrest   has   been   issued   by   a   court   of  
competent  jurisdiction  in  the  state.  
h.   Any   person   who   has   no   ostensible   means   of   subsistence   and   who   cannot   give   a  
satisfactory  account  of  himself,  and  
i.   Any   person   found   in   the   state   taking   precautions   to   conceal   his   presence   in  
circumstances   which   afford   reason   to   believe   that   he   is   taking   such   precautions   with  
a  view  to  committing  an  offence.  
 
NB-­S.25   Police   Act-­police   can   make   arrest   based   on   an   already   issued   warrant  
without  warrant  in  possession  
 
NOTE-­‐In  arrest  without  warrant,  once  the  arrest  is  made  upon  reasonable  grounds,  police  
is  not  in  breach  of  any  law-­‐  JACKSON  V.  OMOROKUNA  (1981);    
If   the   arrest   is   not   based   on   reasonable   suspicion,   the   police   may   be   liable   for  
unlawful  arrest:  COP  V.  OBOLO  (1989)  
 
NOTE-­a   police   officer   can   only   exercise   the   power   of   arrest   without   warrant   within   his  
state  command.  
 
LIABILITY  FOR  WRONGFUL  ARREST  WITHOUT  WARRANT  
1. If   no   offence   was   actually   committed,   and   although   an   offence   was   committed,   the  
arrested   person   was   not   responsible   for   it,   the   Police   Officer   is   not   liable   for  
unlawful  arrest-­‐Wiltshire  v.  Barrett;    
2. Where  a  policeman  detains  a  suspect  in  order  to  confirm  his  alibi  or  to  investigate  
the  case  further,  he  would  not  be  liable  for  false  imprisonment-­‐Dallison  v.  Caffery  
 
B-­JUDICIAL  OFFICERS  
Where   an   offence   is   committed   in   the   presence   of   a   Judicial   Officer   (Magistrate   or   Judge)  
within   his   district   or   division,   the   Magistrate   or   Judge   may   arrest   or   order   any   person   to  
arrest  the  offender  -­‐  S.  15  CPL/ACJL  
NB-­‐S.   29   CPCL   confers   powers   of   arrest   without   warrant   on   a   Justice   of   the   Peace.  
However,   in   practice   magistrates   and   Judges   in   Northern   States   also   exercise   powers   of  
arrest  without  warrant.  
 
Furthermore,   a   Magistrate   or   Judge   may   arrest   or   order   the   arrest   of   an   offender   who  
commits   an   offence   in   his   presence   if   upon   a   complaint   on   oath   by   another   person   he  
would  have  issued  a  warrant  for  arrest  of  the  offender  S.  16  CPL,  S.  30  CPCL.  
 
C-­‐PRIVATE  PERSONS  
Section    
12&13  CPL;  s28(d)  CPCL;  s.21  ACJL;  
S.24  police  act  provides  that  a  private  person  may  arrest  without  warrant.  
i.   Any  person  who  commits  an  indictable  offence  in  his  presence  or  
ii.   Any  person  whom  he  reasonably  suspects  of  having  committed  a  felony    
iii.   Any  person  who  commits  a  misdemeanour  by  night.  
iv.           A   property   owner   can   arrest   any   person   found   committing   an   offence   injurious   to  
property  
v-­‐                If  an  arrested  person  escapes  or  is  rescued  from  custody  
SECTION  28  (d)  CPCL  
vi.   Any  person  whom  he  is  directed  to  arrest  by  a  Justice  of  Peace  or  a  Superior  Police  
Officer.  
vii.   Any  person  who  has  escaped  from  his  lawful  custody  
viii.   Any  person  required  to  appear  by  public  summons  published  under  S.  67  CPCL.  
ix.     Any  person  who  commits  offence  in  his  presence.  
S.13  ACJL  
x.    Any  person  he  finds  damaging  public  property.  
 
NB-­   NWEKE   v.   THE   STATE-­‐  a  private  person  can  arrest  without  warrant  any  person  whom  
he  reasonably  suspects  of  having  committed  a  felony.  
 
NB-­‐   a   person   who   resists   by   force   an   attempt   by   a   private   person   to   arrest   him   in   the  
exercise   of   his   right   cannot   claim   the   benefit   of   self   defence-­‐   Abdullahi   v.   Borno   Native  
Authority  
 
POST  ARREST  REQUIREMENT  BY  A  PRIVATE  PERSON  
S14  CPL;  s39  CPCL;  s9  ACJL  
a.  He  must  proceed  without  unnecessary  delay,  to  hand  over  the  arrested  person  to  a  police  
officer.  
b.   Where   not   possible,   the   private   person   must   take   the   arrested   person   to   the   nearest  
police  station.  
c.   The   Police   Officer   to   whom   the   person   is   handed   over   must   thereupon   re-­‐arrest   the  
arrested  person.  
Where   a   private   person   arrests   an   offender   without   warrant   and   fails   to   hand   over   the  
arrested   person   to   the   police   timely,   he   may   be   liable   for   damages   for   false  
imprisonment  if  unreasonable  delay  is  established:  Lewis  v  Tims  (1952)  
 
 
 
ASSISTANCE  OF  JUDICIAL  OFFICERS  BY  PRIVATE  PERSONS  
Upon   reasonable   demand,   every   person   is   bound   to   assist   a   Judge,   Magistrate   or   Police  
Officer   in   effecting   an   arrest   or   preventing   the   escape   of   any   person   whom   such   a   Judge,  
Magistrate  or  Police  Officer  is  authorised  to  arrest-­‐  S.  34  CPL  
 
NB-­‐Failure   to   so   assist   without   reasonable   excuse   and   knowledge   is   a   misdemeanour  
punishable  by  imprisonment  for  one  year  
 
PROCEDURE  FOR  ARREST-­    
S.1  ACJL    
S.  3  CPL  
1.  Inform  the  person  unequivocally  that  he  is  under  arrest.  
2.TOUCH/CONFINE   the   person   EXCEPT   there   is   submission   to   custody   by   words   or  
conduct    
NOTE-­‐   Invitation   to   the   police   station   is   NOT   an   arrest-­‐   (person   cannot   be   charged   for  
resisting   arrest-­‐   SADIQ  v.  THE  STATE  (1982)  –  thus  mere  words  are  not  enough  to  
make  an  arrest    
3.The   person   arrested   shall   not   BE   subjected   to   unnecessary   restraints   such   as   handcuff,  
leg  chain,  beating  or  maltreating  the  person  arrested  unless  the  person  wants  to  escape  
arrest,  is  violent  or  for  his  safety:  s4  CPL;  s37  CPCL;  s2  ACJL;  s34&35  CFRN  1999  
4.Reasonable  force  may  be  used  where  necessary  to  overcome  any  attempt  at  resistance  by  
the  suspect.-­‐S.  261  Criminal  Code  
NOTE-­‐criminal  liability  for  excessive  use  of  force-­‐  R.  v  Ogunbodede  (manslaughter).  
 
NOTE-­The   Police   Officer   can   use   reasonable   force   to   prevent   the   escape   of   a   person  
suspected  of  having  committed  a  felony  (7YRS)  
-­‐S.  271  Criminal  code:  if  offence  is  a  capital  offence  (he  can  KILL).  
 
EFFECT  OF  ILLEGALITY  OR  IRREGULARITY  IN  THE  PROCESS  OF  ARREST  
SECTIONS  101  CPL;  s384  CPCL;  S.98  ACJL  
The   defect   will   render   the   arrest   unlawful   but   trial   will   be   valid   notwithstanding  
irregularity  in  issuance  and  conduct  of  arrest-­‐  
OKOTIE  v  COP  (1959),  STATE  v.  OSLER.  
 
QUESTION    
Mr   obi   was   arrested   by   a   police   officer   upon   a   warrant   issued   by   the   IGP   and   is  
brought  before  the  court.  He  is  objecting  on  the  ground  that  the  warrant  was  wrongly  
issued.  Comment  on  the  objection?  Does  he  have  any  remedy?    
 
NEW-­A  person  cannot  be  arrested  in  LIEU  of  another  person  (LAGOS  ONLY)-­‐s.4  ACJL  
 
B-­SEARCHES  
S.107  CPL;  S.74  CPCL;  S.104  ACJL;  S29  Police  Act  
 
Search  may  be  effected    on  persons,  premises  and  things.  This  may  be  done  with  or  
without  a  warrant.  
 
A-­SEARCH  OF  PERSONS-­  
• A  search  persons  may  be  conducted  WITH  OR  WITHOUT  a  search  warrant  
• A  police  officer  may  detain  and  search  any  person  whom  he  reasonably  suspects  of  
having  in  his  possession  or  conveying  in  any  manner  anything  which  he  has  reason  
to  believe  to  have  been  stolen  or  otherwise  unlawfully  obtained-­‐    
SECTION  29  POLICE  ACT;  SECTION  4  POLICE  ACT  
• Usually  done  by  policemen-­‐  
S.4  and  28  police  Act.  
• Only  a  woman  is  to  search  the  body  of  a  woman  
S.  6(2)  CPL,  S.  44(3)  CPCL  
• EXCEPTION-­‐  a  man  can  search  a  woman’s  handbags,  briefcases,  wallet  etc.  
• The   search   of   the   body   of   a   woman   by   another   woman   must   be   done   with   strict  
regard  to  decency:  S.  82  CPCL.  
• Person  must  be  searched  by  persons  of  the  SAME  sex  (LAGOS  ONLY)-­‐  
S.5(2)  ACJL  with  regard  to  dignity;  S.34  CFRN  1999  
• Private  persons  with  power  to  arrest  may  conduct  searches-­‐NWEKE  V.STATE  
A  police  man  can  carry  out  MEDICAL  EXAMINATION  for  latent  items  as  part  of  
a  search-­  S.6(6)  CPL;  S.127(1)  &(2)  CPCL;  S.5(6)  ACJL;  FRN  V.  BABA  SUWE  
 
POWER  OF  SPECIAL  PROSECUTORS  TO  CHARGE  PERSONS  WITHOUT  WARRANT  
• NDLEA-­(Concealment  of  drugs  on  a  person)-­‐  
• S.494)  NDLEA  ACT;  ICPCL-­(Proceeds  of  corruption)-­‐    
•  
• S.  5(1)CPORA  and    
• Custom  officials-­  s.133  CEMA.  
 
B-­SEARCH  OF  THINGS  
• A  search  of  things  may  be  conducted  with  or  without  a  search  warrant,  
• A  police  officer  can  search  and  stop  vehicles  on  the  road,  vessels  etc  without  a  
warrant-­‐  Karuma  v.  R  (1955)  
• Powers   of   search   of   things   without   warrant   is   also   conferred   on   customs   officers,  
the  Federal  and  State  Task  Forces  of  NAFDAC  etc.  
 
C-­SEARCH  OF  PREMISES  
Power  to  search  a  premises  includes  power  to  arrest  a  person  found.  
Generally,  premises  cannot  be  searched  WITHOUT  a  SEARCH  WARRANT  
 
Contents  of  a  search  warrant  are:  
a) Address  of  the  premises  to  be  searched;  
 b) Items  to  be  searched  for;  
c) A  directive  that  the  items  be  seized  and  brought  to  court;  and  

d) Signature  of  the  person  issuing  it.  

NB:  S81(1)  CPCL:  the  officer  should  first  be  searched  before  entering  the  premises  
EXCEPTIONS   WHERE   SEARCH   OF   PREMISES   CAN   BE   CONDUCTED   WITHOUT  
WARRANT  
1. Where   a   person   against   whom   a   Warrant   of   Arrest   has   been   issued   is   found   in   a  
premises:  S.  7  (1)  CPL/ACJL;  S.  344(1)  CPCL.  
However,  he  may  seek  the  permission  of  the  person  in  charge  or  residing  in  such  premises  
2. A  justice  of  the  peace  may  direct  a  search  to  be  done  in  his  presence-­‐S.85  CPCL  
3. If   the   police   or   any   other   person   who   is   executing   a   search   warrant   of   premises  
reasonably  suspects  any  person  of  concealing  about  his  person,  articles  for  which  a  
search  should  be  made,  such  a  person  shall  be  searched:  S.  112(3)  CPL,  S.  81  CPCL.  
4. Where  there  is  a  complaint  on  oath  as  to  an  abducted  person  kept  in  the  premises.  
5. A  warrant  of  arrest  comes  with  an  implied  authority  to  search  person  upon  whom  
search  is  to  be  conducted.  
6. The   Nigerian   Security   and   Civil   Defence   Corp   do   not   need   a   search   warrant   to   enter  
a   premise   where   there   is   a   reasonable   belief   that   government   property   is   being  
unlawfully  harboured  
Commandant  General  NSCD  &  Anor  v.  Emason  Ukpeye(Court  of  Appeal-­2012)-­‐  
S.  3(1)  –  (3)  Nigerian  Security  and  Civil  Defence(  Amendment)  Act  2001.  
7. NDLEA   officials   can   search   any   premises   connected   with   a   drug   related   offence-­  
s.32  NDLEA  ACT.  
8. Custom   officers   may   enter   and   break   into   any   Premises   reasonably   suspected   to  
harbour  illegal  goods-­S.147  CEMA  
 
HOW  CAN  A  SEA1RCH  WARRANT  BE  EXECUTED  
1. Before  a  search  warrant  is  executed,  it  must  be  shown  to  the  person,  or  occupier  or  
person  in  control  of  the  thing.  
2. The  body  of  the  person  who  intends  to  conduct  the  search  will  then  be  searched  by  
the  person  named  in  the  warrant  or  occupier  of  things.  [This  is  hardly  obtainable].-­‐
MUSA  SADAU  V.  STATE  (1968)  
3. Where  the  apartment  to  be  searched  is  occupied  by  a  woman   in   purdah,  the  person  
making   the   search   shall,   before  entering  the   apartment,   notify   the   woman   that   she  
is   at   liberty   to   withdraw   and   shall   afford   her   every   facility   for   withdrawing.-­‐    
Section  79  CPCL  
4. The  search  must  be  conducted  in  the  presence  of  two   respectable   inhabitants   of  
the   neighbourhood   to   be   summoned   by   the   person   to   whom   the   warrant   is  
addressed.     This   may   be   waived   by   the   Justice   of   Peace   –   S.   78(1)   CPCL(NORTH  
ONLY)  
5. RIGHT  OF  INGRESS  AND  EGRESS  
 Where   the   premises   or   thing   to   be   searched   is   locked,   the   occupier   shall   on   demand  
allow   the   Police   Officer   free   entry   –   Ss.   112(2)   CPL;   S.109   ACJL.   If   free   entry   is  
denied,  the  Police  Officer  or  other  person  executing  the  search  warrant  is  authorised  
to  use  reasonable  force  to  break  in-­‐   S.7,8,   112   CPL;  S.34(3)   CPCL;   S.8   ACJL.  He  is  
also  authorised  to  break  out  if  he  is  denied  exit:  Ss.  84  &  8  CPL  
6. In  the  course  of  the  search,  if  the  object  is  found,  it  is  liable  to  seizure  by  the  Police  
Officer  executing  the  search  warrant.-­‐  S.  107  CPL;  S.  74,  76  CPCL.  
 
MODES  OF  PROCURING  A  SEARCH  WARRANT  
SOUTH/LAGOS-­  upon  information  on  Oath-­  
S.107  CPL;  S.297  ACJL  
NB-­  this  is  not  needed  in  the  NORTH  
 
WHO  CAN  ISSUE  A  SEARCH  WARRANT-­  
A  search  warrant  may  be  issued  for  a  specific  premises  or  thing  by;  
a. A  Magistrate-­‐S.109  CPL;  S.74  CPCL  
b. A  Judge-­‐  S.109  CPL;    S.74  CPCL  
c. A  Justice  of  the  peace  (NORTH  ONLY)-­S.74-­76  CPCL  
d. A  Superior  Police  Officer  for  this  purpose  ABOVE  the  rank  of  a  CADET  ASSISTANT  
SUPERINTENDENT  OF  POLICE-­‐S.28(3)  Police  Act  
NB-­‐  Every  search  warrant  shall  be  SIGNED  by  the  issuing  authority-­‐  S.  111(2)  CPL  
 
WHEN  CAN  A  POLICE  OFFICER  ISSUE  A  SEARCH  WARRANT-­‐  SECTION  28  POLICE  ACT  
A   Superior   Police   Officer   (above   Cadet   ASP)   can   issue   a   search   warrant   ONLY   in   respect   of  
premises  in  the  following  circumstances:  
i.   when  the  thing  to  be  recovered  from  the  premises  searched  is  stolen  property.  
ii.   where  the  premises  have  within  the   preceding  twelve  months  been  in  occupation  
of   any   person   who   has   been   convicted   of   receiving   stolen   property   or   harbouring  
thieves.  
iii.   premises   occupied   by   persons   who   committed   any   offence   involving   fraud   or  
dishonesty  and  punishable  by  imprisonment.  
 
S4  Police  Act,  Reynolds  v  COP  for  Metropolis  (1985)  seizing  goods  not  specified  in  the  
warrant  if  reasonably  suspected  to  be  stolen  or  otherwise  relevant,  may  be  seized.  

DAY/TIME  OF  ISSUE  AND  EXECUTION  OF  SEARCH  WARRANT  

A  search  warrant  may  be  issued  and  executed  on  any   day  including  Sundays   or   Public  
holidays.  A  search  warrant  shall  be  executed  between  the  hours  of  5am  –  8pm    
 
EXCEPTIONS  where  -­‐the  Issuing  court  authorises  otherwise  in  order  to  meet  the  urgency  of  
a  particular  situation  e.g.  smuggling  vessels,  brothel  etc-­‐Section  111  CPL  
 
LIFESPAN  OF  A  SEARCH  WARRANT  
 
A  search  warrant  once  issued  remains  valid  and  subsisting  until  it  is  executed  or  cancelled  
by  the  issuing  authority  –  S.  109(2)  CPL;  S.106(2)  ACJL  
 
ADMISSIBILITY  OF  EVIDENCE  OBTAINED  IN  THE  COURSE  OF  UNLAWFUL  EXECUTION  
OF  A  SEARCH  WARRANT.  
OLD   POSITION-­All   evidence   illegally   obtained   is   admissible   once   it   is   RELEVANT   to   the  
fact   in   issue:   R.   v   LEATHAM;   Karuma   v.   R   (1955);   MUSA   SADAU   V.   STATE   (1968);   R  
V.SENAT  &SIN  
Thus   where   a   man   carries   out   a   search   of   the   body   of   a   woman,   any   evidence   obtained,  
though  illegally  obtained,  will  be  admissible  once  it  is  proved  to  be  relevant  to  the  case.  
 
 EXCEPTION-­‐  involuntary  confessions-­‐  S.28  Evidence  Act  2011  
 
NEW   POSITION-­  Under  S.14   and   15   EA   2011,   the  court  has  the  discretion  to  weigh  the  
desirability  of  admitting  such  evidence  against  its  undesirability.  It  will  be  admitted  ONLY  
when  tits  desirability  weighs  higher  on  the  imaginary  scale  
 
CIVIL  LIABILITY  FOR  UNLAWFUL  EXECUTION  OF  A  SEARCH  WARRANT  
Irregularity  in  the  execution  of  a  search  with  or  without  warrant  may  attach  to  the  person  
executing   the   search.   Thus,   he   may   be   liable   for   damage   in   civil   action.-­   ELIAS   v.  
PASSMORE  
 
LIABILITY  FOR  PROCURING  SEARCH  WARRANT  
There   is   NO   LIABILITY   if   the   complaint   was   made   in   good  faith.   Where   the   complaint   was  
made   recklessly   or   without   reasonable   cause,   there   the   complainant   may   be   liable   in  
damages  for  malicious  procurement  of  a  search  warrant-­‐  Fowler  v.  Doherty  J.I.C.  Taylor    
 
Where   the   complainant   made   a   report,   and   a   search   warrant   is   issued   and   executed,   he  
may   not  be  liable  in  damages   for   false   imprisonment,  if  the  person  whose  premises  is  
searched   is   arrested   and   detained   by   the   Police:   Kuku   v.   Olushoga;   Adefumilayo   v.  
Oduntan  
 
A   complainant   who   maliciously   set   the   law   in   motion   against   a   person   alleged   have  
committed  an  offence,  may  render  himself  liable   in   damages   for   malicious   prosecution.-­‐  
BALOGUN  V.  AMUBIKAHU  
 
CONSTITUTIONAL  SAFEGUARDS  RELATING  TOSEARCHES  ,ARRESTS  AND  SUMMONS.  
1.  S.  33  right  to  life.  
EXCEPTION-­   S.   33   (2)(B)   –     KILLING   of   a   suspect   may   be   justified;   In   order   to   effect   a  
lawful  arrest;  Pursuit  of  suspect  immediately  after  committing  the  offence  and  to  prevent  
the  escape  of  a  person  lawfully  detained.  
2.  S.  34  Right  to  dignity  of  human  person.  
3.  SECTION  35(1)-­‐  Right  to  personal  liberty  
However   the   exception   under   S.   35(1)(c)   CFRN   recognises   the   right   to   arrest   a   person  
under   a   warrant   or   on   reasonable   suspicion   of   his   having   committed   an   offence   or   to  
prevent  commission  of  offence.  
3.   S.   35(2)   CFRN   1999   (as   Amended):   Right   to   remain   silent   or   avoid   answering   any  
question  until  after  consultation  with  a  Lawyer  or  person  of  his  choice.  
4.  S.   35(3)  Information  in  writing  within  24  hours  and  in  the  language  he  understands  of  
the  facts  and  grounds  for  his  arrest  and  detention.  
5.  S.   35   (4)  charge  the  accused  to  court  within  a  reasonable  time.    Reasonable  time  means  a  
period  of  one  day  where  a  court  is  within  40km  or  a  period  of  two  days  or  longer  
where  necessary  in  any  other  case  –  S.  35  (5)  
6.  S.  35(6)  Public  apology  and  compensation  from  the  appropriate  authority  or  person  to  a  
person  who  is  unlawfully  arrested  or  detained.  
7.   Section   36(5)   CFRN:   every   person   who   is   charged   with   a   criminal   offence   shall   be  
presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty    
8.   Section   36(6)(c):   Every   person   charged   with   a   criminal   offence   shall   be   entitled   to  
defend  himself  in  person  or  by,  legal  practitioners  of  his  own  choice  
9.  S.  37-­‐Right  to  privacy  of  homes,  correspondences,  telephone  conversations  
EXCEPTION-­‐  .S.  45  CFRN-­(S.37-­41)  
10.  S.  41  CFRN  1999-­  Right  to  freedom  of  movement    
EXCEPTION-­‐   Imposing   restrictions   on   the   residence   or   movement   of   any   person  
who   has   committed   or   is   reasonably   suspected   to   have   committed   an   offence   in  
order  to  prevent  him  from  leaving  Nigeria.  
11.  S.  44(1)  No  compulsory  acquisition  of  property    
Exception-­‐  can  be  done  in  the  manner  and  for  purposes  prescribed  by  a  law   e.g.   S.  
44(2)(k)   –   temporary   taking   of   possession   of   property   for   the   purpose   of   any  
examination,  investigation  or  enquiry  
NB-­‐Section  25  Anti  Terrorism  Act  allows  the  IGP  in  cases  of  verifiable  urgency  to  
seal  up  premises  while  a  search  warrant  is  produced.  
12.  Right  to  legal  aid:  s3(1)  –(3)  ACJL:  

See  pg  52  Appendix  1  (Chief  Dede  scenario)  

• Muslim  woman  in  purdah:  s79  CPCL  
• Time  he  issued  the  search  warrant  (5am  –  8pm)  but  he  executed  it  at  11pm:  s111  
CPL  even  though  no  provision  in  the  CPCL,  it  is  applicable  in  Northern  states  
• Mode  of  entry  into  the  house:  s8  CPL:  he  was  not  denied  entry  so  no  need  to  break  
the  gate.    
• Searching  body  of  a  woman:  s44(3)  CPCL    -­‐  woman  should  search  a  woman  and  
even  when  a  woman  searches  a  woman,  it  must  be  done  with  regard  to  decency.  
Taking  something  from  the  bra  is  not  with  regard  to  decency  

• Unreasonable  suspicion:  Fowler  v  Doherty  or  malicious  prosecution  

• S81(1)  CPCL:  the  officer  was  not  first  searched  before  entering  the  premises.    
 • 2  adults  should  have  been  present:  s78(1)  CPCL  
• Inspector  is  not  above  a  Cadet  ASP:  s28  Police  Act.  Thus  search  warrant  is  not  valid.  

• Constitutional  right  breached  as  she  was  detained  for  3  days:  s35(4)  &  s35(5)  
Constitution  
• Cannot  handcuff  her  as  she  didn’t  resist  arrest:  s4  CPL.  However,  if  proved  that  ring  
was  stolen,  then  she  would  be  convicted  even  though  an  unlawful  arrest.  Should  
touch  the  person  and  inform  the  person  that  she  is  under  arrest    
• Under  Musa  Sadau,  the  evidence  if  relevant  is  admissible  but  note  s14  &  15  EA  2011  
Constitutional  safeguards    

• See  above  and  other  constitutional  safeguards  

• The  offence  must  be  known  to  law  
• Section  36(5)  CFRN  
• Right  to  personal  liberty.  Note  the  exception  

• Right  to  remain  silent  until  after  consulting  with  legal  practitioner  or  anybody  of  his  
choice  

• S35(3)  in  writing  and  in  the  language  he  understands  for  reasons  for  arrest  
• S35(4).  The  reasonable  time  of  24hours  or  48  hours  does  not  apply  to  capital  
offences.  Counsel  for  Ngaga  bombing  suspect  is  arguing  for  his  release  as  Terrorism  
Act  has  not  been  amended  to  include  the  bombing  as  a  capital  offence  
• S35(5)  

• S37  
• S44(k):  relating  to  the  temporary  taking  of  property  for  any  examination,  
investigation  or  property  
• Right  to  be  told  of  the  right  to  free  legal  representation:  Legal  Aid  Act.  This  is  
mandatory  in  Lagos  State  to  be  informed  of  this  right    
• Commandant  General,  the  Nigerian  and  Civil  Defence  Corps  and  another  v  Emerson  
Ukpeye  [2012]  (Ct  of  Appeal  in  Calabar)  –  man  alleged  to  have  vandalised  some  
pipelines  belonging  to  the  government  so  his  premises  was  searched.      
Procedural  safeguards:  also  mention  ACJL  

• Section  27  Police  Act  

 • Section  28  &  29  Police  Act:  must  bring  the  person  to  Ct  within  24hours  when  
someone  is  arrested  
• Judges  Rules  on  caution  
• S4  CPL,  s31  CPCL  
• Right  to  be  informed  of  the  offence  by  the  police  unless  caught  in  the  middle  of  the  
act  or  chased  immediately  after  the  act:  s5  CPL;  s38  CPCL  
• Woman  to  be  searched  by  another  woman:  s44(3)  CPCL,  s6(2)  CPL,  s5  ACJL  (done  
by  person  of  the  same  sex)    
• Section  82  CPCL:  woman  to  be  searched  with  decency  

• Woman  in  purdah  has  a  right  to  withdraw  before  a  search  warrant  where  the  
person  is  occupied  is  executed:  s79  CPCL  
• In  the  North,  2  adults  to  be  present  when  executing  a  search  warrant  

• Summons:  s67  CPCL:  where  a  person  has  been  issued  a  public  summons,  must  be  
given  30  days  to  appear  before  that  CT.  

• Any  CT  to  issue  the  summons,  must  be  a  CT  to  that  can  try  that  offence    
• Not  have  been  handcuffed  unless  violent,  in  your  safety  and  resisting  arrest    
• Also  note  police  cannot  enter  the  premises  by  force  unless  entry  is  denied  and  then  
police  is  allowed  to  break  in  and  break  out.  
Summons  (NB:  in  real  life,  a  summons  cannot  be  issued  for  possessing  fake  printing  
machines  as  this  is  a  serious  offence).    
Pg  52  (Chief  Dede  Scenario)  
• In  the  High  CT  of  Kaduna  in  the  Kaduna  Judicial  Division  

• FHC/KB/01/2014  
• The  State  v  Alhaji  Atutuwa  of  No  5  Oduwole  Street,  Kaduna.  In  magistrate  CT,  it  is  
Commissioner  of  Police  v  Alhaji  Atutuwa  
• Being  in  unlawful  possession  of  fake  currency  printing  machine  on  (date)  at  No  5  
Oduwole  Street,  Kaduna    house      

• Justice  Kobiko  at  High  CT  2  on  the  8th  day  of  December  2014  at  9  o’clock  dated  this  
5th  day  of  December  2014    

• Signature/seal  and  date  

Warrant  of  arrest  
 • In  the  Magistrate  Court  of  Kaduna  State  in  the  Kaduna  Magisterial  District  holden  at  
Kaduna  
• Commissioner  of  Police  v  Alhaji  Atutuwa  
• To  all  police  officers  or  Corporal  Ado  
• Alhaji  Atutuwa  of  No  5  Oduwole  Street  

• Being  in  possession  a  fake  currency  printing  machine  on  (Date)  at  No  5  Oduwole  
Street  

• Alhaji  Atutuwa  
• 8th  day  of  December  2014  
• Signature  and  seal  

Search  warrant  (CAP)  

• In  the  Magistrates’  Court  of  Kaduna  State  in  the  Kaduna  Magisterial  District  holden  
at  Kaduna  

• To  Corporal  Ado  and  Corporal  Ade  

• Whereas  information  upon  oath…..  House  5  Oduwole  Street,  Kaduna  a  fake  currency  
printing  machine  
• Governor’s  name…..  no  5  Oduwole  Street,  Kaduna  
• And  also  the  said…..Alhaji  Atutuwa  
• Issued  at  the  Magistrate  Court,  Kaduna  this  8th  day  of  December  2014  

• Signature  and  seal  

See  sample  drafts  of  search  warrant,  warrant  of  arrest  and  summons  below:  
 
I.  Search  warrant  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  KADUNA  STATE  
IN  THE  KADUNA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  KADUNA  
CASE  NO:  
SEARCH  WARRANT  
 
To,  Corporal  Ado  John  or  any  other  police  officer.  
 
Following   the   investigation   of   Alhaji   Atutuwa   of   No.   5   Oduwole   Street   Kakuri   Kaduna   of  
being   in   possession   of   a   fake   currency   printing   machine   on   the   compliant   of   Chief   Dede  
made  on  the  8  of  September  2011,  you  are  therefore  commanded  to  search  the  premises  of  
the  suspect,  Alhaji  Atutuwa  and  to  bring  any  of  the  item  related  to  the  offence  before  the  
State  High  Court  sitting  at  Kaduna  forthwith  to  aid  the  trial  of  the  case  according  to  Law.  
 
DATED  THE  ……  DAY  OF  SEPTEMBER  2011  
 
 
………………….  
Judge  of  the  High  Court  
Kaduna  State  
 
 
 
SUMMONS  
 
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUSTICE  OF  KADUNA  STATE  
IN  THE  KADUNA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  KADUNA  
CASE  NO:  
BETWEEN:  
 
THE  STATE  ……………………….  COMPLAINANT  
VS.  
ALHAJI  ATUTUWA  ……………….ACCUSED  PERSON  
 
SUMMONS  TO  ACCUSED  
 
To:  Alhaji  Atutuwa  of  No.  5  Oduduwa  Street  Kakuri,  Kaduna.  
 
Complaint  has  been  made  this  day  by  Chief  Dede  of  No.  15  Oduwole  Street  Kakuri  Kaduna  
that   you   on   the   8   day   of   September   2011   at   your   residence   aforesaid   did   have   in   your  
possession   a   Counter-­‐feting   currency   printing   machine   contrary   to   S.   365   and   367   of   the  
Penal  Code  or  alternatively  sections  1  and  2  of  the  Counterfeit  Currency  (Special  Provision)  
Act.  
 
You  are  therefore  summoned  to  appear  before  the  State  High  Court  sitting  at  Kaduna  on  the  
13   day   of   September   2011   at   the   Hour   of   9   O’   Clock   in   the   forenoon   to   answer   the   said  
complaint.  
 
DATED  THE  12  DAY  OF  SEPTEMBER  2011.  
 
…………………..  
Judge  
 
  
 
 
WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
 
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUSTICE  OF  KADUNA  STATE  
IN  THE  KADUNA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  KADUNA  
CASE  NO  
BETWEEN:  
 
THE  STATE  …………………….  COMPLAINANT  
 
VS.  
 
ALHAJI  ATUTUWA  …………………..  ACCUSED  PERSON  
 
WARRANT  OF  ARREST  
 
To:  Corporal  Ado  Musa,  Police  officer.  
 
Compliant   on   oath   has   been   made   on   the   28   day   of   September   2011   that   Alhaji   Atutuwa   of  
No.  5  Oduwole  Street  Kakuri  Kaduna  State  have  in  his  possession  a  counterfeiting  currency  
printing   machine   and   thereby   committed   an   offence   punishable   with   life   imprisonment  
under  section  2  of  the  Counterfeit  Currency(  Special  Provision)  Act.    
 
You   are   therefore   hereby   commanded   to   bring   the   accused   before   the   High   Court   sitting   at  
Kaduna  fortwith  to  answer  the  said  complaint  and  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  Law.    
 
DATED  THE  …….  DAY  OF  SEPTEMBER,  2011.  
 
………………  
Judge  
 
MAJI  &  CO  
BARRISTERS  AND  SOLICITORS  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  NIGERIA  
NO  15  BROAD  STREET  
NARAYI,  KADUNA  STATE.  
OUR  REFERENCE:  PHONE:  
DATE:  14  SEPTEMBER  2011.  
 
To,  
 
The  Divisional  Police  Officer,  
Police  Divisional  Headquarters,  
Kaduna  State.  
Sir,  
 
APPLICATION  FOR  BAIL  
We  are  solicitors  to  Mrs.  Atutuwa  of  No.5  Oduwole  Street  Kakuri  Kaduna  who  is  currently  
under   arrest   and   detention   at   your   station,   and   she   shall   be   referred   to   herein   as   ‘our  
Client’.  
 
We   apply   for   her   bail   pending   your   arraignment   of   our   client.   Our   Client   pledges   to   appear  
at  the  station  anytime  requested  by  you.  
 
We  recommend  Alhaji  Atutuwa  Bello  of  no.  14  Broad  Street  Kaduna,  an  in-­‐law  to  our  client,  
as  a  surety  for  our  Client’s  bail.  
 
Thanks  for  the  anticipated  cooperation.  
 
Yours  faithfully,  
 
………………………….  
Maji  Sunday  Esq.  
(Principal  Partners)  
For:  Maji  &  Co.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Week  6  
PRE-­TRIAL  INVESTIGATION/  POLICE  INTERVIEWS  
Blackstone   dictionary   defines   investigation   as   the   process   of   inquiring   into   and   tracking  
down  through  inquiry.  To  investigate  is  to  follow  step  by  step  to  determine  the  accuracy  or  
otherwise  of  the  information    

Onyekwere   v   The   State   (1973):   it   is   the   duty   of   the   police   to   investigate   complaints   or  
any  report  of  the  commission  of  a  crime.  
S4  Police  Act  –general  duties  of  the  police,  ss3-­‐10  CPL,  s117-­‐133  CPCL,  s1-­‐10  ACJL  repeal  
and  re-­‐enactment  law  2011  
Ss  3-­‐10  CPL  is  not  as  detailed  as  CPCL  

Section  4  Police  Act  –  General  duties  of  the  police  includes:  

• Prevention  and  detection  of  crime  

• The  apprehension  of  offenders  

• The  preservation  of  law  and  order  etc  

Fawehinmi  v  IGP  (2002):  duty  to  investigate  crimes  not  every  investigation  that  results  in  
a   criminal   prosecution.   Notwithstanding   s308   of   the   Constitution,   held   that   a   serving  
Governor   can   be   investigation   as   difference   btw   investigation   and   criminal  
proceedings/criminal   prosecution.   Suggested   in   the   case   that   arrest   should   be   the   last  
process   in   the   investigation   of   any   crime.   Only   when   there   is   a   risk   of   flight   by   the   suspect,  
then  can  arrest  before  investigation.  
Akinseye  v  COP(1966):  CT  shall  take  judicial  notice  of  the  general  duties  of  the  police  
Police  duties  does  not  extend  to  enforcement  of  contracts  and  collection  of  debts:  McLaren  
v  Jennings  [2003]  3  NWLR  (  Pt  808)  470  
CPCL    

• S117-­‐133  CPCL  is  Chapter  XII  which  deals  with  information  to  the  police  and  their  
power  to  investigate  

• Ss119-­‐120:  first  information  recorded  

• S121-­‐122:  case  diary  and  the  use  of  case  diary  
• S123:  power  of  police  to  summon  and  examine.  Read  the  section  in  detail  
S3&9  ACJR  2011:  specifically  look  at  the  recording  of  confessions  in  Lagos  State    

Right  of  police  to  interview  or  interrogate  suspects  or  arrestees  
• Not  in  every  context  can  the  words  interview  and  interrogate  be  used  
interchangeable.  Former  is  a  conversation  in  a  non-­‐coercive  environment  btw  police  
officer  and  suspect  or  witness  (to  gather  information  about  what  the  person  knows  
relevant  to  the  subject  of  inquiry).  Latter  refers  to  a  more  structured  interview  of  a  
 suspect  and  in  most  cases,  the  interview  transitions  into  interrogate  where  the  
police  has  a  fair  idea  that  the  person  has  something  to  hide  or  is  implicated  in  the  
crime.  

• Supreme  CT  held  in  2  cases  [Onungwa  v  The  State  (1976)  and  Manship  Namsoh  v  
The  State  (1993)]  that  the  police  can  interview  or  interrogate  any  person.    
• The  person  may  volunteer  information  and  even  if  the  person  was  not  cautioned  
and  he  volunteers  information,  it  does  not  affect  the  admissibility  of  this  
information  in  CT  
Power  of  police  to  record  statements  
• S35(2)  1999  Constitution:  a  person  who  is  arrested  or  detained  has  the  right  to  
remain  silent  or  avoid  answering  any  question  until  consultation  with  a  legal  
practitioner  or  person  of  choice  

• Even  where  the  police  does  not  warn  the  police  as  to  this  right,  any  statement  he  
makes  is  still  admissible    

• Different  jurisdictions:  CPCL  states,  CPL  states,  states  that  have  their  own  
administration  of  criminal  justice  (Ekiti,  Lagos)  

• CPCL  states  (North):  the  rule  regulating  taking  of  statement  is  the  1970  rules  –  
Criminal  Procedure  (Statement  of  Police  Rules)  1970  
• CPL  states  (south  except  Lagos):  Judges  Rules  (from  England  who  have  moved  on  
from  the  Judges  Rules).  While  the  Judges  rules  are  rules  of  administrative  
convenience,  the  1970  rules  have  been  held  to  be  binding  (Supreme  CT  as  1970  
rules  have  partial  statutory  force).  Non-­‐compliance  with  Judges  Rules  may  not  affect  
admissibility  of  a  voluntary  statement  –  Egbogonome  v  The  State  (1993)  
Right  of  the  suspect  to  be  cautioned  

• Both  1970  rules  and  Judges  Rule  provide  that  an  arrestee  should  be  cautioned  
before  statements  are  recorded  
• No  need  for  a  caution  if  the  police  have  not  decided  to  charge  the  suspect  

• A  statement  is  not  rendered  inadmissible  merely  because  no  caution  was  
administered:  s31  Evidence  Act  2011.  See  Sections  30  and  31  E.A.  on  admissibility  
of  physical  evidence  discovered  as  a  result  of  inadmissible  evidence.    
Section  30  EA:  Where  information  is  received  from  a  person  who  is  accused  of  an  offence,  
whether  such  person  is  in  custody  or  not,  and  as  a  consequence  of  such  information  any  
fact  is  discovered,  the  discovery  of  that  fact,  together  with  evidence  that  such  discovery  
was  made  in  consequence  of  the  information  received  from  the  defendant,  may  be  given  in  
evidence  where  such  information  itself  would  not  be  admissible  in  evidence.  
Section  31  EA:  If  a  confession  is  otherwise  relevant,  it  does  not  become  irrelevant  merely  
because  it  was  made  under  a  promise  of  secrecy,  or  in  consequence  of  a  deception  
practised  on  the  defendant  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  it,  or  when  he  was  drunk,  or  
because  it  was  made  in  answer  to  questions  which  he  need  not  have  answered,  whatever  
may  have  been  the  form  of  these  questions,  or  because  he  was  not  warned  that  he  was  not  
bound  to  make  such  statement  and  that  evidence  of  it  might  be  given.  

THE  JUDGES  RULE  

The  Rules  were  first  issued  in  1912  by  the  Judges  of  the  King's  Bench  to  give  English  police  
forces   guidance   on   the   procedures   that   they   should   follow   in   detaining   and   questioning  
suspects.   The   Home   Secretary   had   requested   the   judges   to   explain   how   an   investigation  
should   be   conducted   to   avoid   the   resulting   evidence   being   ruled   inadmissible   in   court.   The  
rules   were   intended   to   halt   a   divergence   in   practice   that   had   developed   among   different  
police  forces,  and  replaced  earlier  informal  guidance,  such  as  Sir  Howard  Vincent's  Police  
Code  and  Manual  of  Criminal  Law.  

The  Judges'  Rules  are  not  rules  of  law,  but  rather  rules  of  practice  for  the  guidance  of  the  
police,   setting   out   the   kinds   of   conduct   that   could   cause   a   judge   to   exercise   discretion   to  
exclude   evidence,   in   the   interests   of   a   fair   trial.   The   rules   did   not   alter   the   law   on  
admissibility   of   evidence,   but   became   a   code   of   best   practice:   it   was   assumed   that  
statements   given   by   a   suspect   in   accordance   with   the   Rules   would   be   admissible   in  
evidence.  

The  Rules:  

• allowed   the   police   to   question   any   person   with   a   view   to   finding   out   whether,   or   by  
whom,  an  offence  had  been  committed  
• required  the  police  to  give  a  caution  when  they  had  reasonable  grounds  to  suspect  
that  a  person  had  committed  an  offence  
• required  a  further  caution  when  a  person  was  charged  and  prohibited  questioning  
afterwards  charging  save  in  exceptional  circumstances  
• required  a  record  of  questioning  to  be  kept  
• gave  guidance  on  the  best  way  to  record  a  formal  written  statement  

Five  further  rules  were  added  to  the  original  four  Rules  in  1918,  and  the  rules  were  further  
explained  in  1934  in  a  Home  Office  Circular  536053/23.  The  Rules  were  reissued  in  1964  
as   Practice   Note   (Judge's   Rules)   [1964]   1   WLR   152,   and   it   is   this   1964   version   that   is  
applicable   in   Nigeria   although   there   have   since   been   replaced   in   England   and   Wales   in  
1986  by  Code  C  made  under  the  Police  and  Criminal  Evidence  Act  1984.  

As  explained  in  R.  v.  Viosin  (supra),  essentially  the  rules  are  administrative  directions  and  
do  not  have   the   force   of   law.   For   this  reason,   failure   to   observe   any   of   them   in   the   taking   of  
a   statement   will   not   necessarily   render   the   statement   inadmissible   in   evidence,   although   it  
may  do  so  –  Nwaebonyi   v.   State   (1992)  5  NWLR  (Pt.  244)  698  C.A;  Ejinma   v.   State   (1991)  
6  NWLR  (Pt.  200)  627  SC;  R.   v.   Wattam   (1952)  36  Cr.  App  R.  72;   R.   v.   Day   (1952)  36  Cr.  
App.  R.  91.   The  test  of  admissibility  is  whether  the  statement  was  made  voluntarily  –R.   v.  
Prager  (1972)  56  Cr.  App.  R.  151.  
Rules   2   and   3   of   the   Judges   Rules   appear   to   be   the   most   commonly   applied   by   police  
officers  in  Nigeria.  As  soon  as  a  police  officer  has  evidence  which  would  afford  reasonable  
ground   for   suspecting   that   a   person   has   committed   an   offence,   he   shall   caution   that   person  
or   cause   him   to   be   cautioned   before   putting   to   him   any   questions,   or   further   questions,  
relating  to  that  offence.  Under  Rule  2  of  Judges  Rule,  the  caution  shall  be  in  the  following  
terms    
“you   are   not   obliged   to   say   anything   unless   you   wish   to   do   so   but  
whatever  you  say  may  be  put  into  writing  and  given  in  evidence”  
Where  a  person  is  charged  with  or  informed  that  he  may  be  prosecuted  for  an  offence  he  
shall  be  cautioned  in  the  following  terms    
“do   you   wish   to   say   anything?   You   are   not   obliged   to   say   anything  
unless  you  wish  to  do  so  but  whatever  you  say  will  be  taken  down  in  
writing  and  may  be  given  in  evidence”.    

After   the   above   question,   any   other   one   relating   to   the   offence   should   not   be   put   unless  
they  are  necessary  to  prevent  or  minimise  harm  or  loss  to  another  person  or  to  the  public  
or   to   clear   up   an   ambiguity   and   in   such   cases   a   further   caution   is   prescribed   –   Rule   3   of  
Judges  Rules.  

If  a  suspect  intends  to  write  his  own  statement,  he  should  be  asked  to  write  and  sign  the  
following  statement  before  he  starts  writing  out  his  statement:    

"I   make   this   statement   of   my   own   free   will.   I   have   been   told   that   I  
need  not  say  anything  unless  I  wish  to  do  so  and  that  whatever  I  say  
may  be  given  in  evidence".    

And   if   it   is   written   by   a   police   officer   the   accused   must   state   at   the   end   of   the   statement  
thus:    

"I   have   read   the   above   statement   and   I   have   been   told   that   I   can  
correct,  alter  or  add  anything  I  wish.  This  statement  is  true.  I  have  
made  it  of  my  own  free  will".    

Persons  other  than  police  officers  charged  with  the  duty  of  investigating  offences  must  as  
much   as   possible   comply   with   the   Judges'   Rules.   Apart   from   complying   with   the   Judges'  
Rules,  the  Nigerian  police  have  evolved  the  practice  of  taking  an  accused  person  who  has  
made   a   confessional   statement   to   a   Superior   Officer   or   a   District   Officer   at   the   earliest  
possible   time   for   endorsement.   This   is   to   give   the   accused   the   opportunity   to   deny   or  
retract   his   statement.   This   practice   has   been   highly   commended   by   Courts–   R.  
v.  Omorewere  Sapele  (1957)  2  FSC.  24;  Nwigboke  v.  R.  (1959)  4  F.S.C  26;  Adamu  v.  A-­G.  
Bendel  State  (1986)  2  NWLR  (Pt.  22)  284.    
However,   the   fact   that   a   confessional   statement   does   not   contain   the   usual   cautionary  
words  is  not  enough  reason  not  to  admit  it  in  evidence  –  Nwaebonyi   v.   State   (supra).   In  
Sunday  Onunga  v.  The  State  (1976)  S  &  C.  169,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  a  confession  
made   without   caution   and   even   before   the   maker   was   charged   with   an   offence   is  
admissible  provided  it  was  voluntary.  Also,  when  a  suspect  or  an  accused  person  who  has  
been   cautioned   is   making   a   statement,   there   is   no   need   to   caution   him   again   when   he  
begins  to  make  a  confession  –  Sangara  v.  The  State  (1965)  1  All  NLR  59.  
As  also  previously  stated  that  the  Judges  rules  as  well  as  the  confirmation  of  confessional  
statement  by  superior  police  officers  is  a  rule  of  practice  and  not  a  rule  of  law  and  therefore  
failure   to   comply   with   them   does   not   render   a   confession   that   was   voluntarily   made  
inadmissible.   R.   v.  Voisin   (1918)   1   KB.   531;   Abukar   v.  The   State   (1969)   NSCC   Vol.   6   at  
313.    
 
But  in  asking  the  accused  to  confirm  or  deny  his  statement  taken  down  in  a  language  other  
than   English,   the   proper   thing   to   do   is   to   read   the   statement   in   its   original   form   and   not   its  
English  translation  if  the  accused  is  illiterate  –  R    v.    Nwangbo  Igwe  (1960)  5  FSC.  55.    
 
It   should   be   noted   that   where   an   interpreter   is   used   in   recording   an   accused   confession  
such  confession  is  inadmissible  unless  both  the  interpreter  and  the  person  who  recorded  
the  statement  are  called  as  witness  –  Nwaeze  v.    The  State  (1996)  2  NWLR  (Pt.  428)  1.  

It   has   been   held   that   before   an   accused   person   can   be   invited   to   pose   for   a   photograph  
which   would   strengthen   the   case   against   him,   he   should   be   cautioned   and   told   he   is   not  
bound  to  pose  for  such  photograph  Ugama  v.    R  (1959)  4  FSC  218.    

Effective  police  interview  

• Police  investigation  is  an  art  that  requires  experience  and  skill.  The  focus  is  the  legal  
parameters  for  lawful  interrogation  
• Interrogation  must  be  conducted  within  the  scope  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  a  
suspect  and  the  provisions  of  the  Evidence  Act    
ACJR  &  RL  2011  

• Section  3(2)  ACJL:  an  arrestee  shall  be  informed  of  his  right  to:    
• Remain  silent  or  avoid  answering  questions  or  avoid  answering  any  question  until  
after  consultation  with  a  legal  practitioner  or  any  other  person  of  his  own  choice  

• Consult  a  counsel  of  his  own  choice  before  making  or  writing  any  statement  or  
answering  any  question  put  to  him  after  arrest  

• Refuse  to  answer  any  question  or  make  or  endorse  any  statement    
• Section  9(3)  ACJL:  provides  that  a  confessional  statement  must  either  be  recorded  
on  video,  or  where  facilities  are  unavailable,  it  must  be  made  and  recorded  in  the  
 presence  of  a  counsel.  The  provision  is  commendable  for  adopting  an  ingenious  
procedure  to  rein  in  police  abuse  of  suspects  in  Nigeria  but  it  does  not  provide  for  
the  recording  of  entire  interrogation  sessions  

Constitutional  Rights  to  a  Suspect  of  a  Police  Station  

• Right  to  silence  
• Right  to  presence  of  a  solicitor  during  the  interrogation  
• Right  to  be  informed  of  the  reason  for  the  arrest  

• Right  to  personally  record  his  statement  if  he  so  wishes  
• Right  to  dignity  of  his  person  
• Right  to  bail    

• Right  to  decent  facilities,  food,  decent  cell  conditions  

• Right  to  medical  facilities  
• Adequate  time  and  facilities  for  his  defence    
• Right  to  be  arraigned  before  a  competent  court  

• Right  to  an  interpreter:  both  the  English  version  and  vincula  version  of  
• Right  not  to  be  tortured    
• Right  to  reasonable  visitation  

• Right  not  to  be  held  in  servitude  

• Right  not  to  be  compelled  or  forced  to  do  manual  labour  
• Right  to  compensation  and  public  apology  for  unlawful  arrest  or  detention  
• Right  to  sleep  at  reasonable  intervals  

• Right  to  life  (e.g.  no  extra  judicial  killing)  –  Cross  River  State  case:  man  tortured  and  
sent  to  a  remote  location  where  two  other  suspects  where  killed.  He  signed  the  
confession  and  had  to  dispose  of  the  bodies.  Trial  judge  said  no  matter  the  threat;  if  
he  were  innocent  he  would  not  confess.  CT  of  Appeal  reversed  this  decision,  Imo  
State  case:  suspect  and  his  family  were  taken  away.  On  the  way  to  the  prison,  he  was  
shot.  He  was  taken  to  hospital  and  later  he  was  given  a  statement  to  sign.  Trial  judge  
held  that  the  threat  was  not  present  when  he  signed  the  agreement.  The  Ct  of  
Appeal  reversed  the  decision.  
CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS  AVAILABLE  TO  A  SUSPECT  AT  THE  POLICE  STATION  
When  a  person  is  taken  to  a  police  station  for  the  commission  of  an  alleged  offence  or  on  
reasonable  suspicion  of  being  about  to  commit  a  crime,  he  is  entitled  to  the  following  rights  
under  the  Constitution  and  other  subsidiary  legislation,  presently  in  force:  

a) Right  of  Silence  -­  Section  35(2)  of  the  1999  Constitution,  provide  for  the  right  of  a  
suspect  to  remain  silent  while  under  arrest  or  being  held  at  the  Police  station.    
The  Section  provides:    

Any   person   who   is   arrested   or   detained   shall   have   the   right   to  

remain   silent   or   avoid   answering   a   question   until   after  
consultation   with   a   legal   practitioner   or   any   other   person   of   his  
own  choice.  
The   import   of   this   provision,   popularly   referred   to   as   the   right   to   freedom   from   self  
discrimination  is  that  an  accused  person  is  at  liberty  to  insist  on  talking  to  a  lawyer  
before  making  a  statement  or  being  subjected  to  interrogation  at  the  Police  Station.  
It  is  therefore  illegal  for  the  Police  to  compel  an  accused  or  suspect  to  talk  or  make  
any  statement,  against  his  wish  and  to  consult  a  lawyer  first,  before  doing  so.  

b) Right  To  have  a  Legal  Representative  of  one’s  choice  present  during  interview-­  
An   accused   person   or   a   suspect,   who   is   under   arrest   or   detention,   has   a   right   to  
Counsel   also   guaranteed   in   Section   35(2)   of   the   1999   Constitution,   while   under  
arrest  or  being  held  at  the  Police  station.  

The  Section  provides:    

Any   person   who   is   arrested   or   detained   shall   have   the   right   to  
remain   silent   or   avoid   answering   a   question   until   after  
consultation   with   a   legal   practitioner   or   any   other   person   of   his  
own  choice.  
The   import   of   this   provision   is   two   fold,   on   one   hand   the   section   guarantees   the  
right   to   silence   earlier   discussed,   on   the   other   hand,   it   provides   that   such   accused  
person   is   at   liberty   to   insist   on   talking   to   a   lawyer   before   making   a   statement   or  
being   subjected   to   interrogation   at   the   Police   Station   and   cannot   therefore   be  
compelled  to  talk  or  make  any  statement,  against  his  wish  and  to  consult  a  lawyer  
first,  before  doing  so.  

c) Right  To  Legal  Assistance  and  Advice:  Related  to  the  right  to  legal  representation  
is  the  corresponding  right  to  free  legal  services  for  those  who  cannot  afford  same.  
Section   46   (4)(b)   of   the   1999   Constitution   empowers   the   National   Assembly   to  
make  provisions  for  the  rendering  of  financial  assistance  to  any  indigent  citizen  of  
Nigeria  where  his  rights  under  Chapter  IV  of  the  Constitution  has  been  infringed  or  
with   a   view   to   enabling   him   engage   the   services   of   a   Legal   Practitioner   to   prosecute  
his   claim.   Pursuant   to   this   Section,   the   Legal   Aid   Scheme   was   established   by   the  
Legal   Aid   Act   Cap   L9   LFN   2004,   now   Legal   Aid   Amendment   Act   (2011).   See   also  
s3(1)-­(3)  ACJL  
  
The  Legal  Aid  Act  2011  contains  several  improvements  from  the  previous  position.  
The   major   areas   of   reform   are   in   the   areas   of   the   eligibility   level   of   the   scheme,  
otherwise  called  means  and  merit  test.  
 
Under  the  2004  Act,  Section  9  (1)  of  the  Act  provided  that  the  eligibility  level  for  the  
purposes   of   assessing   legal   aid   is   N   5,000.00   per   annum,   this   translates   to   about  
N13.00  per  day.  

For   the   classes   of   cases   where   legal   aid   was   available,   the   Legal   Aid   Act   2004   also  
mentioned   specific   categories   of   criminal   and   civil   cases   in   which   the   Legal   Aid  
Council  may  provide  assistance,  to  wit:  

A. Criminal  cases  

The  Legal  Aid  Act  2004  prescribed  that  the  Legal  Aid  Council  may  provide  legal  aid  
for  the  following  offences  under  the  Criminal  Code:    

(i) Murder  of  any  degree  

(ii) Manslaughter  

(iii) Maliciously  or  wilfully  wounding  or  inflicting  grievous  bodily  harm  

(iv) Assault  occasioning  actual  bodily  harm  

(v) Common  assault  

(vi) Affray  

(vii) Stealing  and  

(viii) Rape.  

     The  Corresponding  offences  in  the  Penal  Code  were:    

(i) Culpable  homicide  punishable  with  death  

(ii) Culpable  homicide  not  punishable  with  death  

(iii) Grievous  hurt  and    

(iv) Criminal  force  occasioning  actual  bodily  hurt.  

According   to   the   Act,   Legal   aid   was   also   provided   for   charges   of   aiding   or   abetting,   or  
counselling   or   procuring   the   commission   of,   or   being   an   accessory   after   or   before   the  
 fact  to,  or  attempting  or  conspiring  to  commit,  any  of  the  offences  listed  above.  

B. Civil  cases  

For   Civil   cases,   the   Act   also   provided   for   legal   aid   to   be   provided   for   civil   claims   in  
respect  of  accidents  and  for  breaches  of  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  under  Chapter  
4  of  the  Constitution.  
A   major   mischief   in   the   previous   law   was   the   exclusion   of   armed   robbery,   which  
accounts  for  the  majority  of  arrests  in  Nigeria,  from  the  category  of  offences  eligible  
for   legal   aid.   The   new   Legal   Aid   Act   2011   thus   implemented   the   consensus   of   opinion  
to  widen  the  scope  of  its  operations  in  terms  of  increase  in  the  level  and  category  of  
potential  beneficiaries  from  the  scheme  and  the  subject  matter  coverage.  
Section  10  (1)  of  the  Legal  Aid  Act  2011  provides  that  legal  aid  shall  be  granted  to  a  
person   whose   income   does   not   exceed   the   National   Minimum   Wage.   Section   10(2)  
goes   further   to   provide   that   notwithstanding   the   provisions   of   Subsection   (1),   the  
Board   may   in   exceptional   circumstances   grant   legal   aid   service   to   a   person   whose  
earning  exceeds  the  national  minimum  wage.  This  is  a  major  improvement.  That  is  not  
all.  

The  second  schedule  to  the  Act  provides  for  the  category  of  cases  that  are  eligible  for  
legal  aid  and  in  Item  8  (2),  armed  robbery  is  conspicuously  included.  
Furthermore,  to  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  Section  19  of  the  Act  provide  
for   the   monitoring   and   review   of   cases   of   awaiting   trial   detainees.   Section   19   (2)   of  
the   Act   provide   that   it   shall   be   the   duty   of   all   Police   Officers   and   Courts   to   inform  
suspected   persons   of   their   entitlements   to   the   services   of   a   Legal   Practitioner   from  
the   moment   of   arrest   and   if   such   suspect   cannot   afford   the   services   of   a   Legal  
Practitioner,   to   notify   the   Council   to   represent   him   if   he   so   desires.   And   under,  
Subsection   (3)   of   the   said   Section   19,   the   Legal   Aid   Council   as   well   as   lawyers  
designated  by  it  shall  have  access  to  the  interview.  Section  19  (5)  then  provides  that  
the  Council  may  file  an  application  in  any  appropriate  Court  for  the  review  of  the  case  
of   any   person   who   has   been   held   in   any   place   of   study   without   trial   for   a   period  
exceeding  the  maximum  provided  by  the  Constitution.  
How  to  Apply  for  Legal  Aid  from  the  Council  
Under  the  Legal  Aid  Act,  statutory  criminal  and  civil  legal  aid  application  forms  have  
to  be  used.  Applications  may  be  made  orally  or  in  writing  to  the  headquarters  of  the  
Legal   Aid   Council   in   Abuja   or   to   any   Zonal   or   State   Legal   Aid   Office.     Oral   applications  
must  be  reduced  in  writing  by  the  legal  aid  officer  to  whom  the  application  was  made.  
d) Right  to  freedom  from  unnecessary  restraint:  Just  like  it  happens  during  arrest,  
criminal  accused  persons  or  suspects  are  entitled  to  the  right  not  to  be  unnecessarily  
restrained   during   Police   interview.   This   right   is   closely   associated   with   the   right   to  
have  a  legal  representative  present  during  the  interview,  as  no  Lawyer  worth  his  salt  
would  allow  his  client  to  be  interview  while  handcuffed,  or  in  chains  as  it  sometimes  
 happens.   Such   treatments   are   degrading,   contrary   to   Section   35   (1)   of   the  
Constitution  and  can  render  whatever  statement  obtained  pursuant  to  such  interview  
inadmissible.   What   is   more,   trial   by   ordeal   is   clearly   prohibited   under   our   Criminal  
jurisprudence  –  right  to  personal  liberty  
 
e) Right   to   bail   –   The   right   of   a   suspect   to   bail   is   a   constitutional   right   fully  
guaranteed  under  Section  35(4)  and  (5)  of  the  1999  Constitution,  which  provides  that  
a   suspect   is   entitled   to   be   released   with   or   without   conditions,   even   if   further  
proceedings  may  be  brought  against  him,  within  a  period  of  a  day  or  two  days  of  his  
arrest  and  detention,  as  the  case  may  be.  This  right  is  given  effect  to  by  the  provisions  
of   Sections   17,   18   and   19   of   the   CPL   which   empowers   the   police   to   grant   bail   to   a  
suspect,   on   his   entering   into   a   bond   with   or   without   a   surety   for   a   valuable   sum,   to  
report  at  the  police  station  at  a  given  date  and  time.  Section  129  of  the  CPCL   makes  
similar   provisions   for   bail   of   suspects   by   the   police.   This   is   also   available   in   Section  
17(2)  of  the  Administration  of  Criminal  Justice  Law  (ACJL).  
Where  by  virtue  of  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  a  particular  case  it  is  not  feasible  
for  the  police  to  release  the  suspect  on  bail,  he  must  be  charged  to  court  not  later  than  
a  period  of  24  to  48  hours,  from  the  date  of  detention  depending  on  the  circumstances  
of  each  case–  Section  35  (4)  &  (5)  of  the  Constitution;  Section  3(2)  of  ACJL;  Section  17  
of  CPL.  In  Eda   v.   Commissioner   of   Police   (1982)   6   NCLR,   223,  the  court  held  that  
where   the   Police   arrests   and   detains   a   person   over   an   allegation   or   reasonable  
suspicion   of   committing   an   offence,   and   investigation   of   the   case   are   on-­‐going,   it   is  
their   duty   to   offer   bail   to   the   suspect   and/or   charge   him   to   court,   within   24   hours,  
under  the  appropriate  section  of  the  CPL.  

Section  35(4):   Any  person  who  is  arrested  or  detained  in  accordance  with  subsection  
(1)  (c)  of  this  section  shall  be  brought  before  a  court  of  law  within  a  reasonable  time,  
and  if  he  is  not  tried  within  a  period  of  –  
(a)   two   months   from   the   date   of   his   arrest   or   detention   in   the   case   of   a   person   who   is  
in  custody  or  is  not  entitled  to  bail;  or  
(b)  three  months  from  the  date  of  his  arrest  or  detention  in  the  case  of  a  person  who  
has   been   released   on   bail,   he   shall   (without   prejudice   to   any   further   proceedings   that  
may   be   brought   against   him)   be   released   either   unconditionally   or   upon   such  
conditions   as   are   reasonably   necessary   to   ensure   that   he   appears   for   trial   at   a   later  
date.  

Section   35(4)   of   the   Constitution   sets   out   the   requirement   that   anyone   lawfully  
detained   shall   be   brought   before   a   court   of   law   “within   a   reasonable   time”.   Section  
35(5)   goes  on  to  define  “reasonable  time”  as  one  day,  in  a  situation  where  a  court  of  
competent   jurisdiction   is   with   40   kilometres   radius   from   the   accused’s   location   (s.  
35(a)),  or  a  period  of  two  days  or  such  longer  period  as  in  the  circumstances  may  be  
considered  by  the  court  to  be  reasonable  (s.  35(b)).  
 f) Right   to   be  
taken  to  Court  within  a  reasonable  time:  Section  35  of  the  CFRN,  1999  provides  
for   Right   to   personal   liberty.   Section   35(1)   of   the   CFRN,   1999   states   that   every  
person   shall   be   entitled   to   his   personal   liberty   and   no   person   shall   be   deprived   of  
such  liberty.  As  an  attribute  of  that  right,  Section  35(4)  of  the  CFRN,  1999  states  that  
a  person  arrested  must  be  brought  before  a  court  of  law  within  a  reasonable  time.  
What   this   entails   is   that   in   the   course   of   questioning,   the   Police   should   always   avert  
their   minds   to   be   presumption   of   innocence,   and   refrain   from   treating   the  
interviewee   as   a   condemned   criminal.   Eda   v.   Commissioner   of   Police   (1982)   6  
NCLR,   223   provided   an   opportunity   for   the   Courts   to   give   full   vigour   to   the  
provisions  of  Section  35  (4)&  (5)  of  the  Constitution  by  declaring  Section  17  of  the  
CPL   and   Section   27   of   the   Police   Act   void   for   inconsistency   for   the   said  
Constitutional  provision.  

g) Right   to  
presumption   of   innocence:   Section   36(5)   of   the   CFRN,   1999   states   that   every  
person   charged   with   a   criminal   offence   shall   be   presumed   to   be   innocent   until  
proven  guilty.    
h) Right   to   be  
informed  (in  writing)  of  the  reason  for  arrest:     Section   35(3)   of   the   CFRN,   1999  
states   that   a   person   arrested   shall   be   informed   within   24   hours   of   the   facts   and  
grounds  for  his  arrest  or  detention  (in  a  language  he  understands).  This  applies  to  
arrest  and  detention  as  well  as  to  interview.  A  person  being  interviewed  ought  to  be  
informed  of  his  status  in  the  interview,  whether  as  a  suspect  or  an  a  witness,  this  is  
to  enable  him  decide  whether  to  activate  his  right  against  self  incrimination  or  the  
right  to  Counsel  of  his  choice.  
i) Right   to   public  
apology:  Section  35(6)  of  the  CFRN,  1999  states  that  any  person  who  is  unlawfully  
arrested  or  detained  shall  be  entitled  to  compensation  and  public  apology  from  the  
appropriate  authority  or  person.  This  thus  arises  if  after  the  interview  and/or  pre-­‐
trial  investigations,  it  is  realized  that  the  person  was  wrongly  arrested.  
j) Right   to  
counsel:  section  36(6)(c)  Constitution  
Alibi  
• Alibi:  a  plea  that  the  suspect  could  not  possibly  have  committed  the  offence  in  
question  because  he  was  somewhere  else  at  the  relevant  time:  Ayan  v  The  State  
(2013)    
• The  suspect  is  under  a  duty  to  raise  alibi  at  the  earliest  opportunity  i.e.  immediately  
he  is  informed  that  he  is  suspected  to  have  committed  the  crime  –  Agu  v  The  State  
(1985);  Ozaki  v  The  State  (1990)  
 • He  must  not  only  raise  the  defence,  but  also  provide  particulars  of  the  place  he  was  
and  the  person  he  was  with  at  the  relevant  time  –  Ntam  &  Anor  v  The  State  (1967)  
Duty  on  the  prosecution  to  investigate  the  alibi  
• The  police  are  obliged  to  investigate  alibi  that  is  properly  raised  
• No  need  to  investigate  alibi  where  reliable  eye  witnesses  can  place  the  accused  at  
the  scene  of  the  crime  or  where  it  is  raised  to  send  the  police  on  a  fruitless  
investigation  –  Njoven  v  The  State  (1973);  Omotola  &  Anor  v  The  State  (2009)  
• Where  a  person  says  he  has  an  alibi  in  the  statement  to  the  police,  he  must  appear  in  
CT  to  verify  the  alibi,  if  not  the  CT  can  dispense  with  the  alibi  
Confession  

• Reliable  confession  is  the  strongest  piece  of  evidence  even  stronger  than  eye  
witness  testimony    
• An  accused  may  be  convicted  upon  his  confession  alone  without  any  evidence  and  
without  corroboration.  Strong  because  seen  as  the  fact  that  the  accused  wants  to  
unburden  himself  of  his  guilt  

• Section  28  E.A.  2011:  A  confession  is  an  admission  made  at  any  time  by  a  person  
charged  with  a  crime,  stating  or  suggesting  the  inference  that  he  committed  that  
crime.  
• Any  statement  oral  or  written  suggesting  the  inference  that  the  accused  has  
committed  a  particular  offence  
• A  confession  made  before  or  during  investigation  and  before  trial  is  called  an  
informal  confession  while  an  admission  of  the  commission  of  an  offence  made  in  
court  or  in  a  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  proceeding  is  called  a  formal  confession  or  
plea  of  guilty.    
• Focus  of  the  class  in  on  informal  confessions  
Form  of  a  confession  

• A  confession  may  be  oral  or  it  may  be  in  writing:  Suleiman  Olawale  Arogundare  v  
The  State  (2009):  the  appellant  killed  his  father  (Abuja).  The  testimony  of  the  
officer  was  that  he  met  the  suspect  awake  around  2am  wide  awake.  He  asked  him  
why  he  was  awake  and  he  said  that  it  was  because  the  ghost  of  his  father  who  he  
had  killed  was  hunting  him.  Interestingly,  the  written  statement  was  thrown  out  but  
the  oral  statement  was  upheld  all  the  way  to  the  Supreme  CT  
• In  Lagos  State,  a  confessional  statement  must  either  be  made  in  the  presence  of  a  
legal  practitioner  or  recorded  on  video:  s9(2)  ACJL  
Admissibility  of  confessional  statement    
• Section  29(1)  EA:  In  any  proceeding,  a  confession  made  by  a  defendant  may  be  
given  in  evidence  against  him  in  so  far  as  it  is  relevant  to  any  matter  in  issue  in  the  
proceedings  and  is  not  excluded  by  the  court  in  pursuance  of  this  section.  

• S29(2)  EA:  If,  in  any  proceeding  where  the  prosecution  proposes  to  give  in  evidence  
a  confession  made  by  a  defendant,  it  is  represented  to  the  court  that  the  confession  
was  or  may  have  been  obtained  —(a)  by  oppression  of  the  person  who  made  it;  or  
(b)  in  consequence  of  anything  said  or  done  which  was  likely,  in  the  circumstances  
existing  at  the  time,  to  render  unreliable  any  confession  which  might  be  made  by  
him  in  such  consequence,  the  court  shall  not  allow  the  confession  to  be  given  in  
evidence  against  him  except  in  so  far  as  the  prosecution  proves  to  the  court  beyond  
reasonable  doubt  that  the  confession  (notwithstanding  that  it  may  be  true)  was  not  
obtained  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section.  

• Section  29  (3):  In  any  proceeding  where  the  prosecution  proposes  to  give  in  
evidence  a  confession  made  by  a  defendant,  the  court  may  of  its  own  motion  require  
the  prosecution,  as  a  condition  of  allowing  it  to  do  so,  to  prove  that  the  confession  
was  not  obtained  as  mentioned  in  either  subsection  (2)(a)  or  (b)  of  this  section.  

• S29(5):  In  this  section  "oppression"  includes  torture,  inhuman  or  degrading  
treatment,  and  the  use  or  threat  of  violence  whether  or  not  amounting  to  torture.  

• Sections  30  &  31  EA:  any  physical  evidence  discovered  is  admissible  even  if  
recovered  from  tortured  statement  
• Anti-­‐Torture  Bill  2013  does  not  exclude  the  fruit  of  coerced  confessions  even  when  
the  confessional  statement  has  been  excluded  

• Section  14  EA:  Evidence  obtained
(a)  improperly  or  in  contravention  of  a  law;  or

(b)  in  consequence  of  an  impropriety  or  of  a  contravention  of  a  law,  shall  be  
admissible  unless  the  court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  desirability  of  admitting  the  
evidence  is  out-­‐weighed  by  the  undesirability  of  admitting  evidence  that  has  been  
obtained  in  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  was  obtained.  

• Section  15  EA:  For  the  purposes  of  section  14,  the  matters  that  the  court  shall  take  
into  account  include—  

(a)  the  probative  value  of  the  evidence;  

(b)  the  importance  of  the  evidence  in  the  proceeding;  

(c)  the  nature  of  the  relevant  offence,  cause  of  action  or  defence  and  the  nature  of  
the  subject-­‐matter  of  the  proceeding;  

(d)the  gravity  of  the  impropriety  or  contravention;
(e)whether  the  impropriety  or  
contravention  was  deliberate  or  reckless;  

(f)whether  any  other  proceeding  (whether  or  not  in  a  court)  has  been  or  is  likely  to  
 be  taken  in  relation  to  the  impropriety  or  contravention;  and  

(g)the  difficulty,  if  any,  of  obtaining  the  evidence  without  impropriety  or  
contravention  of  law.  

• Section  30  &31  EA  does  not  bring  Nigeria  with  the  UN  Convention  against  torture  
• A  retraction  of  a  statement  is  different  from  an  allegation  that  the  statement  was  
made  contrary  to  section  29  E.A.  where  accused  retracts  the  statement;  the  CT  may  
admit  the  statement  although  the  CT  may  credit  the  statement  with  less  weight  
depending  on  the  other  evidence  in  the  case  (depends  on  circumstances  of  the  case).  
CT  will  just  ask  whether  it  is  safe  to  convict  on  such  a  retraction.  Aremu  v  The  State  
(1991);  Egbogonomo  v  The  State  

 
Trial  in  trial:    
• Trial  within  trial  is  used  to  determine  whether  the  confession  is  in  violation  of  s29.  
Olabode  v  State  (2009):  Supreme  CT  held  the  test  for  the  admissibility  of  a  
confessional  statement  is  its  voluntariness  and  once  the  issue  is  raised,  it  must  be  
resolved  before  its  admission    
• Babalolo  Orishade  v  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria  (2013):  the  prosecution  has  the  
burden  of  proving  that  the  statement  was  taken  in  accordance  with  s29  E.A  2011.  
Usually  the  investigating  police  officer  who  recorded  the  police  would  be  called  to  
testify.  CT  decides  whether  prosecution  has  proved  its  case  beyond  reasonable  
doubt  
• By  convention,  when  confession,  a  superior  police  officer  will  endorse  that  
statement.  So  the  superior  police  officer  will  also  give  evidence.  Ct  held  this  is  not  
obligatory  but  a  commendable  practice    

Identification  
• The  process  of  associating  a  person  with  the  communication  of  a  crime  
• Identification  may  be  done  by  visual  recognition,  photographic,  voice,  fingerprint,  
identification  parade  etc  
• A  witness  who  claims  to  have  known  an  accused  person  before  the  crime  must  link  
him  to  the  crime  at  the  earliest  opportunity  and  not  wait  for  identification  parade.  
See  case:  Bozin  v  The  State    
Identification  parade  

• An  ID  parade  shall  be  conducted  promptly:  Adamu  v  The  State  (1991);  Uzoma  v  
The  State  (2013)  
 • The  procedure  is  to  arrange  persons  with  similar  characteristics  for  the  victim  to  
pick  out  the  perpetrator  from  among  several  persons.  To  arrange  as  many  persons  
as  possible  (at  least  8)  as  the  same  physical  build  for  the  witness  to  pick  out.  Where  
there  are  2  suspects,  increase  the  minimum  number  of  persons  to  12.  The  accused  
person  must  be  given  the  choice  as  to  where  they  can  stand  in  line  without  the  
witness  knowing  this.  
• By  convention,  an  ID  parade  should  be  supervised  by  a  superior  police  officer  who  
himself  would  not  participate  in  the  actual  exercise    
• A  photograph  of  the  line-­‐up  ought  to  be  taken  before  the  victim  is  invited  to  identify  
the  perpetrator  
• The  superior  police  officer  writes  a  report  and  fills  the  requisite  forms    
• At  the  end,  the  report  must  be  signed  by  2  officers  i.e.  the  officer  who  makes  the  
entries  and  the  officer  who  conducts  the  parade  
Handling  of  Exhibit  

• There  is  a  list  of  such  exhibits,  called  Exhibit  List  which  chronicles  the  items  seized  
from  one  suspect  all  from  different  suspects  in  relation  to  one  case.  Then  there  is  the  
Exhibit   Register   where   the   list   of   all   exhibits   in   the   custody   of   the   Police   in   a  
particular  Station  or  Division  is  recorded.  The  person  that  keeps  custody  of  all  such  
exhibits  is  the  Exhibit  Keeper  and  he  is  in  charge  of  the  Exhibit  Room  where  all  the  
items   in   relation   to   cases   handled   are   kept,   and     from   where   they   are   brought   to  
Court  during  trial.  

• It   should   be   noted   that   not   all   exhibits   are   admissible   in   court.   It   is   only   when   an  
exhibit  is  relevant  to  the  case  or  fact  in  issue  that  it  can  be  admissible  and  marked  as  
Exhibit  ‘A’,  Exhibit  ‘B’,  etc  
• Exhibits  are  documents  or  physical  objects  discovered  or  recovered  and  relevant  to  
an  investigation  
• Exhibits  must  be  carefully  handled  to  prevent  contamination  –  to  provide  a  clear  
chain  of  custody  
• The  chain  of  custody  must  be  documented  and  proved  in  court,  otherwise  the  
exhibit  may  be  tainted  
• The  proper  procedure  is  to  mark  each  exhibit  and  lodge  it  with  the  exhibit  keeper  
• Exhibits  must  be  properly  marked  and  lodged  
• The  officer  who  recovers  the  exhibit  will  hand  it  over  to  an  exhibit  keeper  

• The  IPO  must  testify  to  when  he  recovered  the  exhibit,  what  was  done  with  or  to  the  
exhibit  between  when  it  was  recovered  and  when  it  was  tendered  in  court    
 How  to  apply  for  assistance  under  the  Legal  Aid  Scheme  
S8  Legal  Aid  Act  2011  provides  that  the  Council  shall  provide  legal  aid  in  three  broad  
areas,  namely:  Criminal  Defence  Service,  Advice  and  Assistance  in  civil  matters.  Assistance  
is  to  indigent  persons  involved  in  criminal  investigation  or  proceedings:  s8(2)  Legal  Aid  Act  
2011.  
Criteria  for  eligibility  of  legal  aid  

• There  must  be  merit  in  the  application;  and  

• The  applicant  shall  meet  the  indigence  test  
• S10(1)  Legal  Aid  Act:  shall  only  be  eligible  to  a  person  whose  earning  does  not  
exceed  the  national  minimum  wage  

Police  bail  
• A  person  arrested  must  be  taken  to  Ct  within  24  hours  if  there  is  a  Ct  within  40km  
radius.  Where  there  is  no  court  within  such  distance  the  person  shall  be  taken  to  
court  within  48  hours  of  arrest  or  such  longer  period  as  in  the  circumstances  may  be  
considered  by  the  court  to  be  reasonable:  s35(5)(a)  &(b).  e.g.  where  investigation  
cannot  be  completed  within  such  period,  a  court  may  order  the  person  to  be  
detained  for  a  longer  period.    
• NB:  generally  no  bail  for  armed  robbery  and  capital  offences.  If  the  crime  is  not  a  
capital,  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  police  station  or  place  of  detention  may  admit  the  
accused  to  bail  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  may  be  appropriate,  pending  
investigation.  
Terms  and  conditions  of  police  bail  
• It  must  be  entered  upon  recognisance  with  or  without  surety  

• The  essence  of  police  bail  is  to  ensure  that  the  accused  enjoys  liberty  while  ensuring  
that  he  is  available.  Where  there  is  a  significant  flight  risk,  the  police  is  less  inclined  
to  grant  bail  
• Bail  is  not  generally  monetary;  may  require  you  to  execute  a  bond  and  other  
conditions.  
Procedure  for  police  bail  
• Bail  may  be  granted  upon  an  application  by  the  suspect  or  his  counsel  

• Application  by  counsel  is  made  on  the  letter  head  of  chambers  
• The  application  is  addressed  to  the  DPO,  COP,  AIG,  IG  as  the  case  may  be.  At  the  state  
level,  the  application  may  also  be  addressed  to  the  ACP  (Assistant  Commissioner  of  
Police)  in  charge  of  CID  (Criminal  Investigation  Department)  if  the  COP  permits  
Remedies  available  to  a  detainee  who  is  refused  or  denied  police  bail  
When  police  refuses  bail:  

A)  Application  for  enforcement  of  fundamental  rights:  

The  rules  set  out  the  practice  and  procedure  for  the  litigation,  regulation  and  prosecution  
of  all  matters  relating  to  the  enforcements  of  fundamental  rights  of  citizens  by  the  courts,  
pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  chapter  IV  of  the  constitution.  In  pursuance  of  the  foregoing  
statutory  enactments  for  the  protection  and  enforcement  of  rights  of  an  aggrieved  person,  
such   person   has   the   following   legitimate   and   constitutional   guaranteed   remedies,  
whenever  the  rights  are  violated.  
1) An  order  of  leave  to  enforce  his  rights  

2) An  order  of  declaration  

3) An  order  of  mandamus  
4) An  order  of  injunction  
5) Award  of  damages  

6) An  order  of  release  or  habeas  corpus  

7) An  order  of  certiorari  and  prohibition  
8) Public  apology.  

Another  option  available  to  an  action  person  who  has  been  refused  bail  by  the  Police  is  to  
approach  a  Court  to  grant  him  bail.  
B)  Habeas  corpus  proceedings:  Writ  of  HABEAS  CORPUS  
This  is  a  Latin  word,  which  means  “that  you  have  the  body”.  This  remedy  is  to  secure  the  
release  or  liberty  of  the  subject,  whose  right  to  personal  liberty  has  been  lawfully  infringed  
on,   and   which   is   better   explained   by   the   more   elaborate   Latin   expression   habeas  corpus  ad  
subjiciendum   meaning   a   writ   directed   to   the   person   detaining   another,   and   commanding  
him  to  produce  the  body  of  the  prisoner,  or  person  detained.  This  is  the  most  common  form  
of  habeas  corpus  which  is  to  test  the  legality  of  the  detention  or  imprisonment,  not  whether  
he  is  guilty  or  innocent.  
 
Habeas  corpus  proceedings  are  usually  governed  by  State  Laws  and  an  application  herein  is  
made   ex-­parte  accompanied   by   a   deposition   on   oath,   stating   the   facts   and   circumstances   of  
the   wrongful   detention,   necessitating   the   filing   of   the   application.   It   is   a   very   potent  
weapon  for  restoration  of  abridged  and  deprived  fundamental  rights  of  detainees.  
In  Alhaji  Manfred  v.  IGP  &  Ors,  the  court  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  application,  
ordered   the   immediate   release   of   the   applicant   from   detention   as   well   as   the   release   of   his  
confiscated   properties   on   the   grounds   that   the   police   lacked   the   power   to   carry   out   his  
arrest  without  sufficient  evidence,  and  also  had  no  powers  to  confiscate  his  property  and  
personal  effect  without  a  valid  court  order.  
C)  In  Lagos  State  and  CPCL  he  may  apply  to  a  magistrate  CT  for  an  order  for  his  production  
in  CT  (s77(2)  CPCL).  Note  if  suspect  does  not  fulfil  conditions  of  bail,  he  cannot  just  run  to  
CT  to  grant  bail  as  police  will  state  that  bail  has  been  granted  upon  certain  provisions  
See  Pg  52-­‐53:  Scenario  2:  Agbo  –  role  play  

• Where  were  you  this  afternoon  

• But  Mrs  Olu  from  Kuchiko  village  saw  you  there  this  afternoon  right  around  the  time  
the  theft  tool  place    
• But  Mrs  Olu  is  partially  blind.  Do  you  have  any  other  witnesses  placing  my  client  at  
Kuchiko  village  this  afternoon  
• Can  anyone  confirm  seeing  you  at  Jollywell  Hotel  
• What  of  Mrs  Agbo,  she  claims  you  were  one  of  the  people  who  took  her  money.  
Lawyer  states  that  the  identification  process  was  faulty.  Well  the  identification  
parade  is  not  strictly  necessary  

• In  any  case,  why  have  you  denied  bailed  

• Application  for  bail:  Burago’s  medical  condition  (right  to  medical  care)  
How  do  you  obtain  confessions  and  admissions  in  the  scenario  
• How  come  we  found  20,000  in  your  possession.  

• My  client  withdrew  from  an  ATM.  Do  you  have  the  text  alert  to  prove  it.  He  disabled  
it.  Ok,  produce  a  copy  of  the  bank  statement    

• Identification  parade:  Imo  v  State  –  people  with  same  physical  aspects  and  a  
minimum  of  8  people.  Where  there  are  2  suspects,  increase  the  minimum  number  of  
persons  to  12.  The  accused  person  must  be  given  the  choice  as  to  where  they  can  
stand  in  line  without  the  witness  knowing  this.  
• Alibi:  police  to  investigate.  Was  the  alibi  raised  at  the  earliest  possible  time?  Also  if  
they  have  concrete  evidence  of  that  accused  persons  committed  the  crime,  no  need  
to  investigate  the  alibi  raised    
• Bail:  this  is  an  offence  which  allows  bail  as  not  a  capital  or  serious  offence.  If  the  
counsel  makes  the  application,  the  counsel  should  write  the  application  on  his  letter  
handed  paper  and  recommend  sureties.    
• Right  to  remain  silent  and  counsel  (not  cautioned)  
• NB:  some  legal  safeguards  support  the  constitutional  safeguards    
Exhibit  
• If  the  exhibit  is  perishable,  then  take  photos  of  these  items  and  then  return  the  
perishables  to  the  owner.  The  photos  will  be  admissible  in  evidence  in  the  CT  of  law.  
Note  the  new  Evidence  Act  2011  on  photographic  evidence  etc    
Scope  of  legal  aid  
• Legal  Aid  Act  2011  
• Section  8  2011  Act:  legal  aid  will  be  allowed  in  cases  of  criminal  defence  service,  
advice  and  assistance  in  certain  civil  matters  (e.g.  murder/culpable  homicide  
punishable  by  death  etc);  assistance  to  indigent  persons  involved  in  criminal  
investigation  or  proceedings  (s8(2))  ….  Representation  at  the  police  station  and  in  
court,  mediation,  legal  counselling,  financial  and  welfare  assistance  for  women  and  
children,  rehabilitation  back  to  society  etc  

• Section  10:  who  can  apply  for  legal  aid:  below  the  minimum  wage  (should  be  about  
N18,000);  suspect  must  be  an  indigent  person  

Constitutionality  of  S27  Terrorism  Prevention  Act:  is  it  justified  in  the  interest  of  public  
safety?  Under  the  CPCL,  police  can  approach  a  magistrate  to  hold  a  suspect  for  a  longer  
time  if  they  cannot  complete  their  investigation  within  24hours.  The  idea  of  s35  is  so  that  
people  are  not  held  incommunicado  and  does  not  mean  that  suspects  cannot  be  held  for  
longer  than  24hours.    
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
Week  7:  INSTITUTIONS  OF  CRIMINAL  PROCEEDINGS  

• Attorney  General  (Chief  Law  Officer):  s150(1)  &  195(1)  CFRN  1999  as  amended  –  
power  to  institute  and  undertake  criminal  proceedings,  power  to  take  over  criminal  
proceedings  and  discontinue  criminal  proceedings  (he  doesn’t  have  to  give  the  CT  
 reasons).  The  Constitution  states  that  the  AG  is  to  act  in  the  interest  of  justice:  State  
v  Ilori  (1983)  –  this  issue  came  up  as  to  whether  the  AG  must  satisfy  this  
requirement  to  enter  a  nolle  prosequi.  In  exercising  this  power  inferred  that  the  
Constitution  should  have  the  interest  of  justice  to  exercise  its  powers  but  it  is  not  for  
the  CT  to  ask  the  AG  to  satisfy  this  requirement  before  the  CT  (thus  the  AG  is  a  law  
until  himself).  Therefore  only  public  opinion  can  be  the  only  check  on  the  powers  of  
the  AG.  The  power  of  the  AG  to  enter  nolle  (to  discontinue  at  any  stage  before  
judgment).  The  Constitution  does  not  give  the  mode  for  entering  nolle  but  some  
other  statutes  have  given  the  procedure:  s73(1)  CPL,    s253  CPCL  (the  AG  goes  to  CT  
in  person  and  informs  the  CT  orally  that  he  wants  to  discontinue  or  puts  it  in  writing  
and  gives  it  any  law  officer  in  his  department  to  enter  it  into  CT:  CPL  and  CPCL),  71  
&  72  ACJL  (the  ACJL  is  silent  as  to  whether  if  the  AG  does  not  appear  in  person,  then  
it  can  be  in  writing.  Some  authors  state  that  the  wording  of  ACJL  means  that  both  the  
AG  and  his  law  officers  can  go  to  CT  and  discontinue  proceedings  but  in  practice  the  
AG  gives  a  written  document  for  law  officer  to  enter  in  CT).  NB:  nolle  prosequi  can  
be  entered  when  the  case  is  at  the  trial  CT  and  not  when  the  case  is  on  Appeal.  AG  
cannot  enter  nolle  during  the  appeal.  The  power  of  nolle  is  personal  to  the  AG  (AG  
Kaduna  State  v  Hassan  (1985))  and  where  there  is  no  sitting  AG,  this  power  
cannot  be  exercised  unlike  other  powers  of  the  AG,  which  can  be  exercised  by  law  
officers  in  the  AG’s  office  even  where  there  is  no  sitting  AG  and  so  the  Solicitor  
General  could  not  exercise  this  power.  The  AG’s  power  to  institute  proceedings  
cannot  be  done  in  a  CT  martial.  The  effect  of  a  nolle  prosequi  is  that  the  accused  is  
discharged  but  he  can  be  prosecuted  afterwards  with  respect  to  the  same  offence.  
AG  Federation  cannot  commence  an  action  where  it  is  purely  based  on  state  law  and  
the  same  with  AG  State.  However,  where  the  law  covers  both  federal  and  state  law,  
either  AG  State  or  Federation  can  commence  the  action.  Edet  v  State  (1988):  a  case  
pending  before  magistrate  CT  and  AG  bypassed  it  (didn’t  terminate  this  case)  and  
instituted  a  case  at  the  High  CT.  In  taking  over  the  case,  the  former  case  pending  
before  the  CT  need  not  be  concluded  before  the  AG  institutes  a  new  action.  CT  said  
this  did  not  amount  to  an  abuse  of  CT  process,  although  the  Supreme  Court  
acknowledged  that  it  was  desirable  to  withdraw  the  charge  against  the  accused  
persons  at  the  magistrate  court.  AG  need  not  give  reasons  for  decision  to  prosecute  
or  not:  Amaefule  v  State.  
• Nolle  is  a  discharge  and  not  an  acquittal:  Clarke  v  AG  Lagos  State    
• Police:  s23  Police  Act  &  s75  CPL  &  130  CPCL:  prosecute  criminal  cases  in  any  CT  in  
Nigeria  (except  CT  martial)  without  the  consent  of  the  AG.  Osahon  v  FRN  (2000):  
Police  can  go  as  far  to  the  Supreme  CT.  Contradictory  as  only  legal  practitioners  can  
address  the  CT.  However,  the  AG  may  take  over,  continue  or  discontinue  any  such  
criminal  cases.  Subject  to  the  leave  of  Ct,  the  police  may  withdraw  criminal  case  
brought  to  CT;  s75  CPL,  s73  ACJL  –  a  fine  distinction  btw  these  two  Acts  –  restriction  
of  this  power  to  magistrate  CT  in  CPL  but  not  so  in  ACJL.  In  section  75  CPL,  if  the  
case  is  withdrawn,  the  police  must  give  reasons  as  they  require  the  leave  of  the  CT  
to  withdraw  the  case  (distinct  from  power  of  nolle  of  AG).  If  such  withdrawal  is  
made  in  the  course  of  any  enquiry,  the  accused  shall  be  discharged  in  respect  of  such  
 enquiry.  During  trial,  if  withdrawal  is  before  the  accused  is  called  upon  to  give  his  
defence  (effect  is  a  discharge.  If  accused  has  been  called  upon  to  enter  a  defence  
(effect  is  an  acquittal)  but  provided  even  where  he  has  not  been  called  upon  to  give  
a  defence,  it  could  be  an  acquittal  if  the  magistrate  who  makes  an  order  of  acquittal  
feels  that  due  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case  an  acquittal  is  justified.  The  
magistrate  must  record  the  reason  for  making  such  an  order  
• Private  persons:  s59(1)  &  342  CPL,  143(e)  CPCL  &  s254  ACJL:  may  bring  
compliant  to  CT  against  an  offender.  Generally  where  police  or  AG  are  not  wiling  to  
bring  a  case  but  still  subject  to  the  powers  of  the  AG  (s59(1),  s342  CPL:  private  
person  must  get  an  endorsement  saying  that  the  AG  or  law  officer  has  seen  the  case  
and  he  is  not  interested  in  prosecuting  the  case  and  they  must  give  an  undertaking  
that  the  private  person  will  prosecute  the  case  diligently  and  to  logically  conclusion.  
The  AG  can  brief  a  private  legal  practitioner  to  act  on  his  behalf,  requires  a  fiat  from  
the  AG  -­‐  Nafiu  Rabiu  v  State  (1980)  SC,  State  v  Gwanto  (1983)  SC.  Private  person  
must  apply  for  Fiat  but  in  the  North  no  requirement  for  this).  Under  s143(e)  CPCL  
private  person  may  prosecute  without  the  need  to  obtain  consent  of  AG  i.e.  can  
compel  the  AG  with  an  order  of  mandamus  (NB:  the  AG  can  then  enter  a  nolle  
prosequi).  In  practice,  generally  private  persons  prosecute  for  non-­‐indictable  
offences.  The  provision  of  342  CPL  is  different  from  that  and  s254a  ACJL  that  a  
private  person  must  provided  as  surety  (100  in  CPL  and  10,000  for  Lagos).  A  private  
person  can  withdraw  a  case  but  costs  will  be  awarded  against  him.  
AG  Anambra  State  v  Nwobodo  –  private  persons  with  AG’s  fiat.  Prosecuting  with  
AG’s  fiat  is  prosecuting  for  the  state.  But  where  as  just  a  private  prosecutor,  then  put  
your  name.  
• Special  Prosecutors;  NDLEA,  Customs  &  Excise  etc:  Acts  setting  them  up  empower  
them  to  institute  criminal  proceedings  but  subject  to  AG.  EFCC  and  ICPCL’s  power  is  
exercised  under  the  powers  of  the  AG.  This  is  different  from  special  prosecutors  
who  prosecute  for  specific  offences  created  by  the  Act  not  under  the  AG  (Factories  
Act;  Customs  Management  and  Excise  Act).  

• EFCC,  ICPCL.  S6m,  7(2)nd  &  13(2)  EFCC  Act  and  s6(1)  and  61(1)of  the  ICPCL  Act    

o EFCC,  ICPCL:  Akingbola  v  FRN  (2012):  the  former  Intercontinental  Bank  

boss    

o Ehindero  v  FRN  (2014):  a  former  IGP  was  charged  of  mismanagement  of  
accounts  and  he  raised  objections  that  ICPCL  cannot  prosecute  him  without  
the  consent  of  the  AG.  The  CT  said  the  ICPCL  is  subject  to  powers  of  AG  but  
where  the  ICPCL  institute  criminal  proceedings,  the  consent  of  the  AG  is  
implied.  What  does  the  CT  mean  by  implied  consent  (is  this  a  presumption  of  
regularity:  that  something  that  should  be  done  is  assumed  to  be  done).  
Perhaps  the  reason  for  this  is  because  the  ICPCL  is  seen  an  arm  of  the  AG’s  
office    
 o Special  prosecutors:  don’t  have  to  be  lawyers  to  prosecute  and  empowered  
by  specific  Acts  to  institute  proceedings:  s66  Factories  Act  which  vest  power  
of  prosecution  on  the  Inspector  of  Factories    

Modes  of  instituting  criminal  proceedings  

Magistrate  CT  in  the  South  
• 2  ways  to  bring  proceedings  
• (1)  By  bringing  the  person  arrested  without  warrant  before  a  magistrate  on  a  
charge  signed  by  a  police  officer:  s78(b)  CPL;  State  v  Okpegboro  (1980)  Ct  held  a  
law  officer  can  also  sign  it  (someone  working  in  the  AG’s  office)  
• (2)  Upon  a  compliant  to  the  CT  whether  or  not  on  oath  that  an  offence  has  been  
committed  by  a  person  whose  presence  the  magistrate  can  compel:  s78(a)  CPL  
Magistrate  in  the  North  
• By  laying  a  complaint  before  a  magistrate:  s143(d)  CPCL  
• By  bringing  a  First  Information  Report  (FIR)  before  a  magistrate:  s118  &  143(b)  
CPCL.  Note:  an  FIR  is  just  information  before  the  CT  and  not  a  charge  so  the  accused  
person  will  either  say  true  or  false  to  the  FIR.  When  the  magistrate  is  satisfied  that  
there  is  a  prima  facie  case,  he  will  now  draft  the  charge.    

• Sections  117,  118  and  143(b)  of  the  CPCL.  By  this  method,  a  suspect  arrested  
usually  without  a  warrant  is  brought  to  a  Police  station  where  the  Front  Desk  Officer  
(FDO)  listens  to  the  complaint  against  him  usually  by  the  Investigating  Police  Officer  
(IPO).  If  the  Police  officer,  usually  the  FDO,  is  satisfied  with  the  information  that  a  
prosecution  will  serve  public  interest,  he  receives  the  complaint  in  writing  in  the  
form  called  “FIR”  which  is  the  First  Information  Report  Form.    If  he  is  not  satisfied,  
he  may  refuse  the  information  and  the  alleged  offender  is  released.  

• If  the  information  is  received,  the  same  shall  be  read  over  to  the  alleged  offender  
who  will,  upon  satisfaction,  sign  it.  The  statement  of  the  offender  may  be  taken  at  
this  stage.  Thereafter,  the  suspect  and  the  FIR  are  taken  before  a  Magistrate,  who,  if  
satisfied  that  the  allegation  is  well  founded,  would  direct  the  matter  to  the  
magistrate  who  has  jurisdiction  in  the  matter  and  if  he  has  jurisdiction,  he  will  
continue  –  sections  157  to  160  of  CPCL  
Magistrate  CT  in  Lagos  
• By  bringing  a  person  arrested  with  or  without  a  warrant  before  the  CT  on  a  charge  
contained  in  a  charge  sheet  signed  by  a  law  officer  or  police  officer:  s78(1)  ACJL  
High  CT  in  the  South  
 • (1)  By  information  in  any  of  the  following:  instituting  a  formal  document  through  a  
formal  document  called  an  information  (called  a  charge  in  the  North).  Drafting  an  
information  is  also  different  from  drafting  a  charge    

• a)  By  filling  information  at  the  High  CT  with  the  consent  of  the  High  CT  judge:  s77(b)  
CPL,  s340(2)  
• b)  Signed  by  any  public  officer  or  person  designated  by  Governor:  s341(2)  

• c)  By  exhibiting  an  information  ex-­‐officio  by  the  AG  on  simple  offence  
• d)  By  information  filed  in  the  Court  after  the  accused  has  been  summarily  
committed  for  perjury  by  a  Judge  
• e)  By  information  signed  by  a  private  person    

• Consent  of  the  High  CT  judge  is  required  to  file  an  information    
• (2)  By  laying  a  complaint  before  a  judge  whether  or  not  on  oath.  Does  not  require  
consent  but  usually  for  non-­‐indictable  offence:  DPP  v  Aluko;  s77(b)  CPL  
High  CT  in  the  North  

• (1)  By  preferring  a  charge:  s185(b)  CPCL.  After  Leave  of  the  High  CT  judge  has  been  
obtained.  Procedure  for  obtaining  leave  is  by  motion  ex  parte  or  an  application    

• (2)  By  laying  a  complaint  before  a  High  Ct  judge:  s143(d)  CPCL  
• In  Adamawa  and  Taraba  States  criminal  matters  are  commenced  in  the  High  CT  by  
way  of  information.  This  is  made  possible  by  reason  of  amended  of  the  CPCL  law  of  
these  States  
High  CT  in  Lagos  

• By  information  in  any  matter  stated  and  consent  is  not  required  in  Lagos:  s77(1)  
ACJL  

Federal  High  CT  (CT  of  summary  criminal  jurisdiction)  

• By  filing  a  charge  against  an  accused  in  CT.  No  consent  of  judge  is  required  
• Same  applies  to  the  National  Industrial  CT  
Application  for  consent  to  the  information  or  prefer  a  charge  

• CPL  does  not  make  express  provision:  see  s363  (resort  to  England)  CPL  
• Thus  resort  to  Indictment  (Procedure  Rule)  1971  in  England  
• (a)  In  writing  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  proposed  charge  or  information    
 • (b)  An  affidavit  where  applicant  is  not  the  AG  to  the  effect  that  to  the  best  of  the  
person’s  knowledge,  information  and  belief  the  statements  contained  in  the  
information  are  true  

• In  Kano,  where  AG  wants  to  apply  to  prefer  the  charge,  he  does  not  require  consent.  
But  his  law  officers  need  the  consent  of  the  High  CT  judge    
• (c)  Proof  of  evidence  of  witnesses,  exhibits,  list  of  witnesses  to  be  called  etc  (all  the  
evidence  that  you  have  against  the  accused  together  with  a  statement  that  the  
evidence  shown  by  the  proofs  will  be  available  at  the  trial  and  that  the  case  
disclosed  by  the  proofs  is,  to  the  best  knowledge,  information  and  belief  of  the  
applicant,  substantially  a  true  case  
• (d)unedited  statement  of  the  accused  person  and  witnesses  
• (e)  That  there  had  been  no  committal  proceedings  

• (f)  Where  an  application  has  been  previously  made,  this  fact  must  be  disclosed  as  
well  as  the  result  of  such  application  

• Application  for  leave  to  prefer  a  charge  in  the  North  is  regulated  by  the  Criminal  
Procedure  (Application  to  prefer  a  charge  in  the  High  CT)  Rules  1970…..  

• In  the  High  Ct  of  FCT,  a  Practice  Direction  2014:  modifies  the  CPCL  Act  of  the  FCT  
the  way  to  bring  application  for  leave  to  prefer  a  charge  –  where  making  an  ex  parte  
application  seeking  leave,  the  accused  person  must  be  present.  It  is  still  ex  parte  
even  though  the  accused  is  present.  Note  there  are  other  modifications  

• A  judge  will  satisfy  himself  that  a  prima  facie  case  is  disclosed  before  granting  
consent.  Where  consent  is  required  before  filing  an  information  or  preferring  a  
charge,  failure  to  obtain  it  nullify  an  proceeding  thereto:  AG  v  Clement  Isong  (1986)  
CT    
WHAT  AN  ACCUSED  MUST  DO  IF  HE  WANTS  TO  OBJECT  TO  GRANT  OF  
LEAVE/CONSENT  
• Where  the  accused  feels  the  leave  was  wrongly  granted,  he  may  apply  by  Motion  on  
Notice  supported  by  an  affidavit  that  the  Charge  or  information  be  quashed.  The  
Motion  should  be  moved  immediately  after  the  Prosecution’s  opening  address  
or  before  the  plea  is  taken.    
• NB-­‐Where   an   application   for   Leave   or   consent   is   not   granted,   a   similar  
application   to   other   Judges   in   the   jurisdiction   can   be   made   until   it   is   exhausted  
and  a  further  one  made  to  the  Court  of  appeal.  -­‐  
 
High  CT,  Lagos  
• Prosecutorial  authority  is  exercised  by  the  state  using  the  name:  The  State  of  Lagos  :  
s249  ACJL.  The  information  must  contain  the  details  of  the  offence,  dated  and  signed  
by  the  law  officer  presenting  it  to  Court  
Limitation  of  time  for  instituting  criminal  cases  in  CT  
As  a  general  rule,  there  is  no  time  limit  within  which  to  commence  criminal  proceedings  
against  an  offender.  In  other  words,  proceedings  may  commence  at  any  time  after  the  
commission  of  the  offence.    There  are,  however,  some  statutory  exceptions:  
• Military  offences  (after  retirement):  3  months  
• All  militate  offences  except  mutiny,  failure  to  supress  mutiny  and  desertion  –  3  
years    
• Sedition   –   Under   section   52(1)   of   the   Criminal   Code,   proceedings   in   respect   of  
sedition  must  be  commenced  within  six  months.  
• Treason   and   Treasonable   Felony   –   Under   section   43   of   the   Criminal   Code,  
criminal   action   in   respect   of   persons   and   treasonable   felony   must   be   commenced  
within  two  years.  
• Sexual  offences  under  s218,  221  Criminal  Code  –  2  months.  Persons  under  the  age  of  
13  or  between  13-­‐16years  who  is  mentally  disabled  (imbecile)  
• Offences   under   CEMA   –   Under   section   176(3)   of   the   Customs   and   Excise  
Management  Act,  offences  must  be  commenced  within  7  years.  
NB:  how  to  do  an  application  for  leave  (North)/consent  (South)  to  prefer  a  charge/  or  file  
an   information:     AG   Federation   v   Isong:   must   establish   a   prima   facie   case.   Where  
leave/consent  is  required  and  it  is  not  obtained,  the  trial  is  a  nullity  (so  fatal  to  the  trial).  
Different   methods   of   drafting   this   application   (in   the   North   and   the   most   used   is   way   of  
motion   ex   parte   supported   by   an   affidavit).   Must   have   enough   evidence   against   a   person  
before  the  CT  will  allow  you  to  file  a  charge.  In  the  affidavit,  state  the  offence  and  state  that  
you   are   attaching   the   proposed   charge   sheet   as   EXHIBIT   A,   state   you   are   attaching   the  
proof  of  evidence  (summary  of  your  evidence:  that  X  was  seen  by  eye  witnesses  stabbing  
the  person,  the  list  of  witnesses,  that  the  knife  used  to  stab  the  person  is  with  the  police,  
medical  report  that  the  stab  wound  caused  the  death,  state  that  it  is  the  first  time  you  are  
making   the   application   as   it   is   the   only   procedure   where   if   the   application   is   taken   by   a  
judge  and  he  refuses  to  grant  leave/consent,  the  application  can  be  taken  to  another  judge  
of   coordinate   jurisdiction:   a   unique/special   procedure   as   you   don’t   have   to   go   on   appeal  
when   the   application   is   refused   the   first   time   or   state   that   you   have   previously   filed   the  
application   in   Court   1   and   the   judge   refused   to   grant   the   application)   -­‐   Gali   v   The   State  
(1974).   Here   only   photocopies   of   these   exhibits   are   attached   and   as   an   ex   parte  
application,  the  accused  is  not  present  and  it  is  generally  done  in  Chambers.  Held  in  State  v  
Abacha:   leave   can   be   obtained   by   way   of   letter   asking   for   consent   addressed   to   high   CY  
judge  or  by  motion  ex  parte  or  by  way  of  recital  (whereas  the  person  was  arrested  on,  state  
all  the  other  facts.  NB:  no  consent  is  required  in  the  Federal  High  CT  but  leave  required  in  
the  State  High  CT.  
Motion  ex  parte  is  preferred.  
  
SAMPLE  APPLICATIONS  
 
Ndu  Gabriella  
Director  of  Public  Prosecution  
             
Ministry  of  Justice,  
             
Lagos  State.  
             
11th  January,  2014  
The  Chief  Judge  of  Lagos  State,  
Hon.  Justice  XYZ,  
Delta  State  Judiciary,  
Asaba  –  Delta  State.  
 
My  Lord,  
APPLICATION  FOR  CONSENT  TO  FILE  AN  INFORMATION  
I  am  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecution  in  the  Lagos  State  Ministry  of  Justice  and  I  hereby  
apply  for  consent  to  file  an  information  on    a  charge  of  stealing  against  one  Mr  AGD  
 
Investigation  into  the  case  has  been  concluded  and  all  the  witnesses  that  the  prosecution  
intends   to   call   in   proof   of   its   case   are   available.   Attached   to   this   application   are   the  
following  documents:  
1. A  copy  of  the  proposed  Information;  
2. The  unedited  statement  of  the  alleged  offender;  
3. The  proof  of  evidence;  and  
4. List  of  Exhibits  to  be  relied  upon.    
 
This   application   is   made   on   behalf   of   the   Attorney   General   of   Delta   State.   No   previous  
application   for   consent   has   been   made   and   I   have   utmost   belief   in   the   case   against   the  
alleged  offender.  
NB-­‐  P.343(CRIMINAL  LIT  PAST  QUESTIONS)-­‐  variation(where  a  previous  application  was  
refused  by  another  judge).  
Yours  faithfully,  
 
Ndu  Gabriella    
 Director  of  public  prosecution  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  BORNO    STATE  
IN  THE  BORNO  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  BORNO  
CASE  NO:……  
BETWEEN:    
THE  STATE                …………………..  COMPLAINANT/  APPLICANT    
VS.    
 XYZ…………..      ACCUSED  PERSONS  
MOTION  EX-­PARTE  
BROUGHT  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  185(B)  OF  THE  CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  CODE  
AND  RULE  3(1)AND(2)  OF  THE  CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE(APPLICATION  FOR  LEAVE  
TO  PREFER  CHARGE  )RULES  1970  AND  UNDER  THE  INHERENT  JURISDICTION  OF  
THIS  COURT  
TAKE  NOTICE  that  this  Honourable  Court  will  be  moved  on  the  ………  day  of  ………..  
2014  at  the  Hour  of  9O’Clock  in  the  forenoon  or  so  soon  thereafter  on  the  application  
of  the  complainant  on  behalf  of  the  State  praying  for  the  following:    
1.AN  ORDER  granting  leave  to  prefer  a  Charge  of  Stealing  against  the  accused  persons  
in  the  forms  and  terms  of  the  proposed  charge  sheet  hereby  exhibited  as  “annexure  A  
2.  AND  FOR  SUCH  ORDERS  OR  FURTHER  ORDER  as  this  Honourable  Court  may  deem  
fit  to  make  in  the  circumstances    
DATED  THIS  ……….  DAY  OF  ……..2014  
            ………………………….    
                                                                                                                             GABRIELLA  NDU  
             DIRECTOR  OF  PUBLIC  PROSECUTION  
MINISTRY  OF  JUSTICE,  BORNOSTATE.    
                                                                                                                                                                                                     FOR:ATTORNEY  GENERAL,  BORNO  
STTE  
 
NB-­‐  WHEN  DOING  THE  MOTION  EXPARTE  FOR  CONSENT  IN  THE  SOUTH-­‐  BRING  IT  
UNDER  THE  S.363  OF  CPL  AND  THE  INDICTMENTS  PROCEDURE  RULES  1970.  
                                                                                                                                                         
xxxxxxxxx…………………………………………………………………………………………………  
Also  don’t  forget  that  affidavit  is  required.  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  KWARA  STATE  
IN  THE  ILORIN  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  ILORIN  
              CASE  NO:  KW/IL/02/07  
BETWEEN:  
THE  STATE……………………………………………..COMPLAINANT  
AND  
BUBA  SULE…………………………………………………….ACCUSED  
 
APPLICATION  FOR  LEAVE  TO  PREFER  A  CHARGE  IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  UNDER  
SECTION  185  (b)  OF  THE  CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  CODE  AND  RULE  3  (1)  AND  (2)  OF  
THE  CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  (APPLICATION  FOR  LEAVE  TO  PREFER  A  CHARGE  IN  THE  
HIGH  COURT)  RULES,  1970.  
 
WHEREAS:  
 1. The   above   named   accused   person   was   arrested   for   the   offence   of   culpable   homicide  
punishable  with  death  under  Section  221  of  the  Penal  Code.  
2. There   is   sufficient   evidence   to   justify   the   accused   person   being   put   on   trial   for   the   said  
offence.  
3. There  has  been  no  previous  application  made  to  this  court  under  Section  185  (b)  of  the  
Criminal   Procedure   Code   or   any   other   proceedings   under   Chapter   xvii   of   the   same  
Criminal  Procedure  Code.  
4. It   is   desirable   to   prefer   this   charge   without   first   holding   a   Preliminary   Inquiry   to  
expedite  the  trial  of  the  accused  person  and  avoid  the  delay  necessarily  involved  in  the  
interest  of  justice.  
5. The   application   is   accompanied   by   the   proof   of   evidence   of   the   witnesses   the  
prosecution  intends  to  call  in  support  of  the  charge  at  the  trial  of  this  case.  
6. The  case  disclosed  by  the  proof  of  evidence  is  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  information  
and  belief,  a  true  case.  
7. This  application  is  made  on  behalf  of  the  Attorney  –General  of  Kwara  State  of  Nigeria  
by  virtue  of  Section  7  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  Law.  
NOW  THEREFORE,  I  Ndu  Gabriella,  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions  in  the  Kwara  State  
Ministry  of  Justice,  Ilorin  do  hereby  apply  for  leave  of  the  Honourable  court  to  prefer  the  
following  charge  against  the  accused  person.  
DATED  THIS…………………..DAY  OF……………………………..2014.            
………………………….  
NDU  GABRIELLA.  
DIRECTOR  OF  PUBLIC  PROSECUTIONS  
KWARA  STATE  MINISTRY  OF  JUSTICE  
 
WEEK  8:  CHARGES  –  important  for  exams  
MEANING  OF  CHARGE  
Every   person   who   is   charged   with   a   criminal   offence   shall   be   entitled   to   be   informed  
promptly   in   language   he   understands   and   in   detail   the   nature   of   the   offence:   Section  
36(6)(a)   CFRN;   Timothy   v   FRN   (2008)   All   FWLR   (pt   402)   1136.  The  main  purpose  of  
charge   is   to   give   accused   notice   of   the   case   against   him:   Odeh   v   FRN   (2008)   FWLR   (Pt  
424)  1590.  
Section   2(1)   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Act   (CPL)  defines  a  charge  as  the  statement  of  
offence   or   statements   of   offences   with   which   an   accused   is   charged   in   a   summary   trial,  
before   a   court.  The   Criminal   Procedure   Code   (CPCL)   on   its   part   does   not   define   a   charge   in  
any  section  but  rather  prescribes  the  form  for  charges  in  Section  200.  
 
The  definition  of  charges  under  the  CPL  as  has  been  argued,  and  rightly  too,  is  defective  for  
two   major   reasons.   One,   the   definition   of   charges   in   Section   2   (1)   CPL   as   relating   only   to  
summary  trials  is  misleading  as  charges  also  relate  to  trials  by  information.  Even  the  CPL  
itself  in  Sections  339  as  well  as  the  prescribes  forms  contained  in  the  schedule  to  the  Act,  
make  charges  applicable  to  trials  by  Information.  
 
Accordingly,   Section   375   of   the   ACJL   Lagos   defines   charge   as   the   statement   of   offence   or  
statements   of   offences   with   which   an   accused   is   charged   in   a   trial   whether   by   way   of  
summary   trial,   or   by   way   of   trial   by   information   before   a   High   Court   or   any   court   or  
tribunal  established  by  law.  
 
Secondly,  the  definition  of  charge  as  relating  only  to  statement(s)  of  offences  accords  only  
with  the  provisions  of  Sections  156  &  304(2)  of  the  CPL  as  well  as  the  definition  of  charge  
given   in   Edun   v   Inspector   General   of   Police   (1966)   1   All   NLR   17   as   a   “count   of  
accusation  of  an  offence.”  
 
A  charge  certainly  means  more  than  that.  A  charge  also  means  the  document  in  which  the  
offences   with   which   a   person   is   charged   are   contained.   This   latter   definition,   upheld   by   the  
Courts   in   Adegbite   v   COP   (1965)   NMLR   432   as   well   as   Edun   v   Inspector   General   of  
Police  (supra)  also   accords   the   generally   accepted   usage   of   the   term   charge.   This   explains  
why  text  book  writers  list  the  contents  of  a  charge  to  include  heading,  reference  number,  
parties,  preamble,  the  count  (charge)  etc.  
As   the   Supreme   Court   held   in   Edun  v  Inspector  General  of  Police  (supra):  Charge  in  the  
CPL   may   mean,   as   in   Sections   162   and   163   the   whole   document   which   may   contain   one   or  
more  counts  of  accusation,  or  merely,  as  in  Section  156,  a  count  of  accusation.      
 
This   document   containing   the   offences   with   which   an   accused   is   charged   is   more  
commonly  called  charge  sheet.  
 
If  an  offence  began  in  one  State  and  was  completed  in  State  B,  both  States  High  Courts  have  
jurisdiction  over  the  offence.  See   HARUNA  V.  THE  STATE  and  PATRICK  NJOVENS  V.  THE  
STATE.  
 
 
FORMS  AND  CONTENTS  OF  CHARGES  (CHARGE  SHEETS)  
Section  150  of  the  CPL  prescribes  the  form  of  charges  in  the  following  words  “charges  may  
be   as   in   the   form   set   out   in   the   second   schedule   to   this   Act   and   may   be   modified   in   such  
respects  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt  them  to  the  circumstances  of  each  case”.  
 
The  equivalent  provision  of  the  CPCL  containing  basically  similar  words  is  Section  200  of  
CPCL   while   that   of   the   ACJL   is   in   Section   146.   The   salient   point   to   note   in   all   the   provisions  
is  that  the  forms  are  not  sacrosanct,  as  the  laws  each  provide  that  necessary  modifications  
are  permissible  to  adapt  them  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  each  case.  
 
Generally,   charge   sheets   take   different   forms   depending   on   different   factors.   Firstly,  
whether  it  contains  a  charge  drafted  under  the  provisions  of  the  CPL  or  CPCL,  and  secondly,  
whether   it   is   a   charge   in   the   Magistrates’   Court,   the   Federal   High   Court,   the   State   High  
Court  in  Northern  Nigeria  or  an  information  in  the  State  High  Court  in  Southern  Nigeria.  
 
In   the   High   Court   in   the   South,   it   is   referred   to   as   an   information   (also   in   Adamawa   and  
Taraba  states)  –  NB  information  is  also  a  charge.  In  the  magistrate  court  in  the  South  and  
the  courts  in  the  North,  the  Federal  High  Court  and  National  Industrial  Court,  it  is  referred  
to   as   a   charge.   Police   draft   charges   in   the   magistrate   court   in   the   South,   in   the   North   the  
magistrate  drafts  the  charges.  Introductory  part  is  required  in  the  North.  There  is  usually  3  
paragraphs  in  the  magistrate  Court  in  the  North  (introduction,  body  of  the  charge  and  the  
direction:   s160(1)   CPCL:   magistrate   in   the   Court   drafts   and   signs   the   charge).   The   3  
paragraphs   is   not   applicable   in   the   High   Court   in   the   North.   In   the   High   Court   in   the   North,  
it   is   just   one   paragraph   (section   200   &   201   CPCL)   In   the   magistrate   court   in   the   South,   it   is  
just  the  body  of  the  charge  (no  need  for  introduction).  Same  applies  to  FHC,  NIC  
Every   head   of   offence   is   referred   to   as   a   count   in   the   South   and   a   charge   in   the   North.  
Where  head  of  offence  contains  more  than  one  count/charge,  it  must  be  numbered  serially.    
However,  in  the  High  CT  in  the  South,  there  are  2  paragraphs  (section  337  &  338  CPL,  251  
ACJL:  statement  of  offence  and  particulars  of  offence  –  2nd  and  3rd  schedule  CPL).  In  the  FHC  
and  NIC  and  High  Ct  in  the  North  only  one  paragraph.  
Note:  for  Federal  High  CT,  it  is  the  CPL  that  is  applicable.  For  High  Ct  of  the  FCT,  it  is  the  
CPCL  Act  that  is  applicable.    
 
The  forms  are:  
1) Heading;  
2) Reference  number;  
3) Parties;  

4) Preamble;  
5) Counts  (charges);  and  
6) Date  and  Signature  of  the  drafting  authority.  
1)  HEADING  

The   charge   sheet   is   headed   by   the   name   of   the   court   where   the   trial   of   the   accused   is   to  
take  place.  The  heading  will  also  indicate  the  State  where  the  trial  will  take  place  and  the  
Magisterial   district   or   Judicial   division   where   the   case   is   to   be   tried.   Section   337   of   the  CPL  
provides   that   every   information   shall   bear   a   heading   whilst   there   is   no   such   provision   in  
the  CPCL.  But  the  same  procedures  apply.  It  is  called  “judicial   division”   in  High  Courts,  and  
“magisterial  districts”  in  Magistrates’  Courts.  
 
2)  REFERENCE  NUMBER    
The   charge   sheet   bears   a   charge   number   or   case   number   also   known   as   reference   number.  
Charge   numbers   are   used   in   the   Southern   states   while   case   numbers   are   used   in   the  
Northern   states.   The   charge   or   case   number   as   the   case   may   be   is   stated   at   the   top   right  
hand  corner  of  the  charge  sheet  immediately  after  the  heading.  

3)  PARTIES  
In  criminal  proceedings,  the  victim  of  a  crime  is  not  a  party  in  the  proceedings,  except  as  a  
witness,  for  example,  in  a  case  between  “The  State  and  XYZ”,  the  State  is  the  complainant  
while  the  offender  is  the  defendant  or  accused  person.  This  is  because  a  crime  is  a  violation  
of   the   laws   of   the   State   made   for   security,   order,   and   good   government   of   the   society.   In  
Lagos  State,  it  is  The  State  of  Lagos  
It   should   be   noted   that   Section   1   of   CPL   uses   the   expression   “defendant”   to   mean   any  
person  against  whom  a  complaint  of  a  criminal  nature  is  made  while  section  1  of  the  CPCL  
uses   the   expression   “accused   person”   to   define   persons   who   are   charged   with   the  
commission  of  a  crime,  arrested  persons  and  persons  who  are  the  subject  of  a  complaint  or  
First   Information   Report   (FIR).   Any   of   the   two   may   be   used   but   whichever   one   uses   first  
must  be  used  consistently.  
In   Magistrates’   Courts,   State   is   represented   by   the   Commissioner   of   Police   (C.O.P.)   in   a  
complaint   while   in   the   High   Courts,   the   Attorney-­‐General   is   represented   as   State,   and   in  
Federal   High   Courts,   Attorney-­‐General   of   the   Federation   is   represented   as   the   Federal  
Republic  of  Nigeria.  

4)  PREAMBLE  
The   requirement   in   this   stage   does   not   apply   to   all   charges.     Thus   the   following   can   be  
distinguished:   The   information   as   applicable   to   the   High   Courts   in   the   Southern   States:  
Criminal  proceedings  are  commenced  by  way  of  information  which  is  usually  filed  by  the  
Attorney-­‐General   of   the   Federation   in   cases   of   violations   of   Federal   laws   and   States  
Attorneys-­‐General  in  cases  of  State  laws  –  section  174  &  211  of  199  Constitution.  

The  two  distinguishing  features  of  an  Information  are:  

i. The   preamble   by   which   the   A-­‐G   informs   the   Court   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   the  
named  offender  is  charged  with  the  offences  stated  after  the  preamble;  and  

ii. Each  allegation  of  offence  is  stated  in  two  paragraphs  namely:  this  should  be  done  
separately  for  each  count.  

A. STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE:  offence  as  named  by  the  law,  the  relevant  law  and  
the  law  it  contravenes  (stealing  contrary  to  section…..  Criminal  Code,  Laws  of  
Ondo   State).   As   a   general   rule,   for   an   information,   contrary   to   and   not  
punishably   by.   However,   it   is   still   the   punishment   section   and   not   the  
description  section  that  is  used    

B. PARTICULARS   OF   OFFENCE:   the   other   things   that   gives   the   defendant   the  
total  information:  (name  of  the  accused,  alias  is  permitted  but  not  mandatory  
date   of   commission   of   offence,   place   of   commission   of   offence,   the   person  
against  whom  offence  is  committed,  the  property  etc)  

These  two  paragraphs  make  each  count  of  an  alleged  offence.  Every  other  succeeding  count  
of   alleged   offence   must   be   stated   in   two   similar   paragraphs   of   statement   of   offence   and  
particulars  of  offence.  
The  charge  as  preferred  in  the  High  Courts  in  the  Northern  States:  This  is  done  by  virtue  of  
Section   185(b)   of   the   CPCL   (but   charges   are   filed   by   way   of   information   in   Taraba   and  
Adamawa  States  –  The  CPCL  (Amendment)  Edict  No.  8  of  1986,  Gongola  State).  The  charges  
are   usually   filed   by   the   A-­‐G   of   the   Federation   in   cases   of   violations   of   Federal   laws   and  
States  A-­‐G  in  cases  of  violations  of  State  laws.  The  alleged  charges  are  then  set  out  in  single  
paragraphs  for  each  count.  Here,  no  statement  of  offence  and  particulars  of  offence.  There  
is  also  no  preamble.    
NB:   in   the   Federal   High   Court,   FCT;   the   parties   is   the   Federal   Republic   of   Nigeria   v   …..   in  
other   states,   The   State   is   used.   Signed   by   the   law   officer   of   AG   of   the   Federation   or   law  
officer  for  the  AG  of  the  state  respectively  
The  charge  as  filed  in  the  Federal  High  Courts:   Criminal  trials  in  such  courts  are  summary  
trials.   The   charges   are   filed   by   the   A-­‐G   of   the   Federation   or   by   law   officers   in   his  
department   on   his   behalf.   The   charge   sheet   does   not   have   a   preamble,   immediately   after  
the  parties  are  named,  the  alleged  offences  are  then  set  out  in  single  paragraphs  for  each  
count.  
The  charge  as  preferred  in  the  Magistrates  Courts  in  Northern  States:  Under  Section  160  of  
the   CPCL,   the   Magistrate   drafts   charges   after   taking   evidence   from   the   prosecution   –  
Haruna  v.  Borno  Native  Authority  (1967)  NNLR  19.  The  charge  sheets  used  for  trials  at  
Magistrates  Courts  in  Northern  States  has  three  parts  namely:  
i. The  introductory  part  

ii. The  main  body  –  counts  

iii. The  direction  –  trial  court.  
The   Magistrate   introduces   himself   before   he   states   the   actual   offence   (count)   with   which  
the  accused  person  is  charged,  thereafter  he  will  state  a  directive  as  to  which  court  shall  try  
the  alleged  offenders.  

The  charge  as  preferred  in  the  Magistrates  Courts  in  Southern  States:  In  such  courts,  this  
does   not   commence   with   a   preamble.   After   stating   the   names   of   the   parties,   the   alleged  
offences  are  then  set  out  in  a  single  paragraph  for  each  count.  
5)  COUNTS  

This  is  the  main  part  of  the  Charge  Sheet  and  contains  the  counts.  
CONTENTS  OF  A  CHARGE  (COUNT)  
A  charge  must  contain  the  following  particulars:  ADPOPSS  
a) Name  of  the  accused  persons;  A  

b) Date  of  the  commission  of  the  offence;  D  

c) Place  of  the  commission  of  the  offence;  P  
d) Statement   of   the   offence   committed,   that   is,   the   offence   which   the   accused   is  
charged  with;  O  
 e) Name  of  the  person  and/or  thing  against  whom  or  in  respect  of  which  offence  was  
committed;  P  
f) The  written  law  and  section  of  the  law  against  which  the  offence  is  said  to  have  been  
committed;  S  and  
g) Signature  of  the  person  drafting  the  charge.  S  
NAME  OF  THE  ACCUSED  PERSONS  
The  accused  persons  must  be  referred  to  in  the  charge  by  name,  description  or  designation  
as  is  reasonably  sufficient  to  identify  him  without  necessarily  stating  his  correct  name  or  
his   abode,   style,   degree   or   occupation   otherwise   he   may   be   described   as   “a   person  
unknown’.  That  is,  it  is  unnecessary  to  state  the  status,  title  or  degree  of  the  accused  person  
–  Section  147  CPL;  and  Section  202  CPCL.  Counts  or  heads  of  charge  must  contain  full  name  
of  the  accused,  alias  is  permitted  but  not  mandatory.  If  in  magistrate  court,  you  use  ‘that  you  
(name).  If  in  the  High  Court,  just  state  the  name.    
DATE  OF  THE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  OFFENCE  

The   charge   is   to   contain   particulars   of   time   –   section   152(1)   CPL;   and   section   202   CPCL.  
The  date  the  offence  was  committed  must  be  stated  if  it  is  of  essence  in  proving  the  offence  
–   section   152(2)   CPL.   Charge   need   not   contain   the   exact   date   in   which   the   offence   was  
committed,   it   is   sufficient   if   the   charge   states   on   or   about   a   particular   date   but   it   should   be  
as  near  as  possible.  In  Duru   v.   Police   (1960)   LLR   130,  the  accused  person  was  charged  
with   receiving   gratification   on   or   about   3   May   1960.   The   evidence   adduced   in   the   trial  
showed   that   the   offence   was   committed   between   5   and   7   May   1960.   The   Magistrate  
amended  the  date  and  the  accused  was  convicted.  On  appeal  against  conviction,  the  court  
held  that  the  amendment  was  unnecessary  because  the  accused  persons  could  have  been  
convicted   on   the   charge   as   earlier   framed;   that   the   exact   date   on   which   an   offence   was  
allegedly  committed  must  not  be  stated  in  the  charge;  and  that  the  provision  of  Section  163  
of  the  CPL  permits  the  amendment  of  a  charge  even  on  the  day  reserved  for  judgment.  

Any  doubt  as  to  the  precise  or  exact  date  on  which  an  alleged  offence  was  committed  may  
be  resolved  by  the  use  of  the  expression  “on  or  about”  in  stating  the  date.  For  example,  on  
or  about  7th  of  December  2009.  Also,  when  time  is  an  element  of  an  offence,  a  count  must  
indicate   the   time   the   offence   was   allegedly   committed.   For   example,   in   the   offences   of  
house   breaking,   and   burglary.   The   time   of   commission   of   the   alleged   offence   is   a   vital  
element,   which   distinguishes   the   offence   of   housebreaking   from   burglary   (the   difference  
between  A.  M  –  day,  and  P.  M  –  evening).  Also  can  use  between  certain  periods.    

PLACE  OF  THE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  OFFENCE  

A   charge   sheet   must   contain   the   place   the   alleged   offence   is   said   to   have   been   committed   –  
Sections   152(1)   CPL;   and   202   CPCL.   State   the   exact   place,   house   number,   street   name,  
town,  including  the  magisterial  district  or  judicial  division  where  the  offence  is  alleged  to  
have   been   committed   in   order   to   determine   the   venue   of   the   trial   of   the   offence,   that   is   the  
court   with   competent   jurisdiction   to   try   the   offender   –   Bamaiyi   v.   Attorney-­General  
Federation   (2000)   6   NWLR   (Pt.   661)   35.   The  place  where  an  offence  is  alleged  to  have  
been  committed  determines  the  heading  on  the  charge  sheet.    
THE  OFFENCE  WITH  WHICH  THE  ACCUSED  IS  CHARGED  
The   offence   allegedly   committed   by   the   accused   must   be   stated   in   the   charge   sheet   –  
Sections  201(1)  CPCL;  and  151(1)  CPL.   If  the  written  law  creating  the  offence  gives  it  any  
specific  name  the  offence  should  be  described  in  the  charge  by  that  name  only  –  Sections  
201(2)  CPCL  and  151(1)  CPL.  If  the  statute  creating  the  offence  does  not  give  it  any  specific  
name,  as  much  of  the  definition  of  the  offence  must  be  stated  in  the  charge  as  is  sufficient  to  
give   the   accused   notice   of   the   allegation   against   him   –   Sections   201(3)   CPCL;   and   151(2)  
CPL.   And   for   this   purpose,   the   offence   should   be   stated   in   its   ordinary   name   and   not   its  
technical  name  –  Section  152(3)  CPL.   For  example,  when  charging  a  person  for  an  alleged  
offence  of  stealing,  the  offence  should  simply  be  stated  as  “stealing”  and  not  as  “fraudulent  
conversion”.  
Where  the  written  law,  which  created  the  offence,  describes  it  in  marginal  notes,  it  is  also  
acceptable  to  use  the  name  given  to  the  offence  in  the  marginal  notes  of  the  statute,  which  
created   the   offence.   The   principal   criminal   enactments,   the   Criminal   Code   and   the   Penal  
Code  employ  the  use  of  marginal  notes.  For  example,  the  offence  of  murder  in  section  316  
of  the  CC  and  the  offence  of  culpable  homicide  punishable  with  death  in  section  220  of  the  
PC.  
It   is   advisable   to   use   the   exact   words   used   by   the   particular   section   of   the   law,   which  
created   the   offence   in   the   count   alleging   the   offence.   In   Adisa   v.   A-­G,   Western   Nigeria  
(1965)   1   All   NLR   412,  the  accused  was  charged  with  murder,  in  an  information  in  the  High  
Court.   The   statement   of   offence   stated   that   the   accused   “murdered”   the   deceased   but   the  
particulars  of  offence  alleged  that  the  accused  “unlawfully  killed”  the  deceased.  During  the  
trial,   the   particulars   of   offence   was   amended   to   read   ‘murdered’   instead   of   ‘unlawfully  
killed’.   The   accused   was   convicted.   On   appeal,   the   Supreme   Court   held   that   the   charge   as  
originally  laid  was  defective  because  the  particulars  ought  to  have  stated  that  the  accused  
murdered  the  deceased,  and  so  the  amendment  was  necessary.  

However,   a   count   that   uses   words   different   from   the   exact   words   used   by   the   law   is   not  
unlawful.  Provided  that  the  accused  person  is  not  misled  by  the  different  words  used  in  the  
count  –  Asuquo  v.  The  State  (1967)  1  All  NLR  123;  Mgbemene  v.  Inspector-­General  of  
Police   (1963)   2   SCNLR   261.   In  Ogbodu   v.   The   State   (1987)   2   NWLR   (Pt.   54)   20,  the  
accused  was  charged  with  murder  but  the  particulars  of  the  offence  stated  that  the  accused  
unlawfully   killed   the   deceased.   The   accused   was   convicted,   on   appeal,   it   was   contended  
inter  alia  that   the   charge   was   defective   because   the   particulars   of   offence   stated   that   the  
accused  ‘unlawfully  killed’  the  deceased  instead  of  stating  that  the  accused  ‘murdered’  the  
deceased.  The  Supreme  Court  rejected  the  contention  and  held  that  although  the  precedents  
in  the  Third  Schedule  to  the  CPL  employs  the  word  ‘murdered’  instead  of  ‘unlawfully  killed’  for  
its  precedent  charge  for  murder,  nonetheless  it  is  permissible  to  use  the  expression  ‘unlawfully  
killed’   instead   of   ‘murder’,   because   the   former   expression   encompasses   both   murder   and  
manslaughter   by   virtue   of   section   315   of   the   Criminal   Code.   The   court   concluded   that   the  
charge  was  not  defective  and  that  the  appellant  was  not  misled  because  he  knew  he  was  being  
tried  for  murder  and  he  defended  a  charge  of  murder.  The  appeal  was  dismissed.    
The  offence  must  be  stated  in  very  clear  terms.  Charge  must  therefore  disclose  the  essential  
ingredients  of  the  offence:  Timothy  v  FRN  (supra).    
NAME   OF   THE   PERSON   AND/OR   THING   AGAINST   WHOM   OR   IN   RESPECT   OF   WHICH  
OFFENCE  WAS  COMMITTED  

The  law  requires  that  the  name  of  the  person  if  any  and  or  the  thing  if  any  against  which  
the   offence   was   committed   should   state   as   are   reasonably   sufficient   to   give   the   accused  
notice   of   the   matter   with   which   he   is   charged   –   Sections   202   CPCL   and   152(1)   CPL.   The  
person  allegedly  offended  is  the  real  complainant  and  his  name  appears  in  the  body  of  the  
charge  sheet.  The  C.O.P  or  the  State,  depending  on  where  the  prosecution  is  being  initiated,  
is,  by  legal  fiction,  the  complainant,  whose  name  appears  in  the  title  of  the  charge  sheet.  
Important   to   state   what   is   stolen   or   who   it   is   stolen   from   because   if   you   steal   from   your  
employer,   the   punishment   is   different   from   just   stealing   (e.g.   not   charged   under   390   but  
390(6)  Criminal  Code).  Punishment  different  if  you  steal  a  will,  public  document  etc).    

The  name  of  the  thing  in  respect  of  which  the  offence  was  committed  must  also  be  stated  in  
the   charge.   For   example,   for   the   offence   of   malicious   damage   to   property,   the   property  
alleged  to  have  been  maliciously  damaged  must  be  clearly  stated.  Also  include  the  weapon  
used.   For   the   offence   of   stealing,   the   thing   allegedly   stolen   must   be   clearly   stated   in   the  
charge   sheet.   It   is   permissible   but   not   mandatory   to   state   in   the   charge   the   value   of   the  
thing  allegedly  stolen  and  the  owner  of  the  thing  allegedly  stolen  –  Section  154(1)  CPL.  In  
Fashola   v.   Inspector-­General   of   Police   (1958)   LLR   53,   the   accused   persons   were  
charged  inter  alia  with  stealing.  The  name  of  the  owner  of  the  lorry  allegedly  stolen  was  not  
stated   in   the   charge.   The   accused   were   convicted   on   the   charge   of   stealing.   On   appeal  
against   conviction   it   was   contended   that   the   charge   was   defective   because   it   did   not  
contain  the  name  of  the  owner  of  the  property  alleged  to  have  been  stolen.  The   Court   held  
that   by   virtue   of   section   154(1)   CPL,   it   was   unnecessary   to   state   the   owner   of   the   property,  
except  where  the  property  was  subject  to  special  ownership.  The  appeal  was  thus  dismissed  
because  the  property  was  not  subject  to  special  ownership.  In   Adewusi   v.   R   (1963)   1   All   NLR  
316,   the  Supreme  Court  stated  that  except  where  required  for  the  purpose  of  describing  an  
offence   depending   on   any   special   ownership   of   property,   the   owner   of   the   thing   allegedly  
stolen  need  not  be  stated  in  the  charge  sheet.  However,  where  the  owner  is  known,  it  is  more  
satisfactory   if   he   is   named   as   such   in   the   charge,   and   if   he   is   not   known,   the   charge   should  
describe  what  was  stolen  as  property  of  persons  unknown.  
Where   the   prosecution   intends   the   court   to   impose   a   stiff   punishment   because   of   the   value  
of  the  thing  stolen  or  the  relationship  between  the  accused  and  the  owner  of  the  property,  
such  value  or  relationship  must  be  stated  in  the  charge  sheet  –  section   152(4)   CPL;   R  v.  
Eson  11  NLR  29.  
THE   WRITTEN   LAW   AND   SECTION   OF   THE   LAW   AGAINST   WHICH   THE   OFFENCE   IS  
SAID  TO  HAVE  BEEN  COMMITTED  
An  accused  can  only  be  charged  under  a  law  which  creates  and  prescribed  punishment  for  
the   offence   that   offence   must   be   known   to   law.   See   section   36(12)   CFRN;   Aoko   v  
Fagbemi;  FRN  v  Ifegwu;  Asake  v  Nigerian  Army  Council:  the  principle  is  also  applicable  
in  court  martial;  AGF  v  Isong;  Bode  George  v  FRN  (2014)  All  FWLR  (pt  718)  879.  This  can  
be   found   under   Sections   151(3)   CPL   and   201(4)   CPCL;   and   Section   36(12)   of   the   1999  
Constitution.   The  constitution  provides  that  no  person  shall  be  charged  with  an  offence  that  
is   not   contained   in   a   written   law   and   penalty   thereof   prescribed.   This   is   consistent   with  
section   151(3)   CPL,   and   section   201(4)   CPCL   which   both   provides   that   a   charge   must   state  
the   written   law   and   the   section   of   it   against   which   the   offence   is   said   to   have   been  
committed.   Therefore,   for   every   offence   charged,   there   must   be   a   written   law   creating   that  
offence.  The  fact  that  a  charge  has  been  made  shows  that  every  legal  condition  required  by  
law  to  constitute  the  offence  charged  was  fulfilled  –  Sections  151(4)  CPL;  and  201(5)  CPCL.  
Thus  the  statute  and  section  of  the  statute  contravened  (important  that  both  are  stated).  In  
other   charges   except   information,   ‘punishable   under   section   …..   Criminal   Code’.   Punishable  
is  used  because  it  is  the  punishment  section  and  not  the  description  of  the  offence  section  
that   is   used.   NB:   there   are   certain   circumstances   where   the   same   section   defines   and  
punishes  the  offence  and  that  section  is  used.  The  problem  is  where  a  section  defines  the  
offence   (say   section   50)   and   there   is   no   punishment   but   further   down,   there   is   a   general  
punishment   section   (say   section   100:   where   a   punishment   is   not   given,   the   person   is  
punished   for….),   then   use   contrary   to   section   50   Criminal   Code   and   punishable   under  
section   100   Criminal   Code).   Other   cases   where   section   50   defines   the   offence   but   section  
51  gives  the  punishment  for  more  than  one  offence,  then  you  use  both  the  description  and  
punishment   section   (contrary   to   section   50   Criminal   Code   and   punishable   under   51  
Criminal  Code).    
 
6)  DATE  AND  SIGNATURE  OF  THE  DRAFTING  AUTHORITY  –    

The  charge  sheet  must  be  dated  and  signed  by  the  person  who  drafted  it.  Where  the  charge  
sheet   is   by   way   of   information,   the   offence   alleged,   the   section   of   the   enactment   creating  
the  offence,  and  the  enactment  creating  the  offence  are  constituted  in  a  separate  paragraph.  
E.g.   police   officer   signs   if   it   is   magistrate   Ct   in   the   South,   law   officer   in   High   Court;  
magistrate  Ct  in  the  North,  it  is  the  magistrate.    
Apart  from  the  Attorneys-­‐General,  any  other  person  who  drafts  a  charge  must  in  addition  
to  charging  it,  state  his  designation  and  state  the  fact  he  is  signing  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  
Attorney-­‐General.  
 
THE  RULES  OF  DRAFTING  CHARGES  

In  Ojegele   &   Ors   v.   The   State   (1998)   2   SCNJ   (Pt.   II)   231,  the  Supreme  Court  cited  with  
approval   the   definition   of   a   rule   stated   in   Western   Steel   Works   Ltd   v.   Iron   &   Steel  
Workers   Union   (1986)   3   NWLR   (Pt.   30)   617,   where   it   was   stated   that:   “a   rule   is   a  
normative  proposition  making  certain  legal  results  depend  upon  the  establishment  of  certain  
factual  situations  stipulated  in  the  antecedent  part  of  the  rule.”  The   Blacks   Law   Dictionary,  
6th  Edition  defines  it  as,  among  other  things,  is  an  established  standard,  guide  or  regulation.  
Rules   therefore   determine   the   outcome   of   the   case   in   which   they   apply.   Some   rules   are  
expressly   stated   in   subsidiary   enactments   to   control   and   regulate   certain   stipulated  
situations.   For   example,   the   rules   governing   the   procedure   of   courts   on   civil   matters   are  
contained  in  the  Civil  Procedure  Rules.  The  rules  governing  the  procedure  to  be  followed  
under  the  provisions  of  the  principal  enactments  are  contained  in  the  Criminal  Procedure  
Act   Rules   and   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   Rules.   Thus,   the   rules   governing   the   drafting   of  
charges  are:  
1. The  rule  against  ambiguity.  
2. The  rule  against  duplicity.  

3. The  rule  against  misjoinder  of  offences.  

4. The  rule  against  misjoinder  of  offenders.  
RULE  AGAINST  AMBIGUITY  
This   rule   states   that   charges   must   be   clear   to   the   extent   as   to   give   an   accused   person  
adequate   notice   of   the   offence   for   which   he   is   charged   –   Section   152(1)   CPL.   This   rule  
unlike  other  rules  is  rigid  and  admits  of  no  exception.  The  rule  applies  to  counts  of  alleged  
offences  and  not  to  the  entire  charge  sheet.  A  charge  (count)  must  therefore  be  free  from  
ambiguity,  must  be  certain  and  should  contain  the  following:  
a) The  name  of  the  accused  person.  
b) The  offence  for  which  the  accused  person  is  charged;  

c) The  written  law  and  the  section  of  the  written  law  against  which  the  offence  is  said  
to  have  been  committed;  

d) Particulars  of  the  date  and  place  where  the  offence  was  allegedly  committed;  and  
e) The   person   against   whom   or   thing,   if   any,   in   respect   of   which   the   offence   was  
committed;  
A   charge   is   thus   bad   for   ambiguity   where   the   particulars   are   omitted,   wrongly   stated   or  
even  stated  in  a  disorderly  manner.  In  Okeke  v  Inspector  General  of  Police  (1965)  2  All  
NLR  81  the  Appellant  was  charged  and  convicted  of  two  offences.  In  the  judgment,  the  trial  
Magistrate   stated   that   the   accused   person   was   charged   under   “some   sections   of   the  
Criminal   Acts.”   On   appeal,   it   was   contended   that   this   contravened   the   provisions   of   Section  
151   (3)   of   the   CPL,   and   that   there   was   no   law   in   existence   known   as   the   Criminal   Acts.   The  
contention  was  upheld  and  the  conviction  set  aside.  Also  in  AG  Federation  v  Isong  (1986)  
1  QLRN  75   a   charge   framed   was   held  to  be  defective  for  failing  to  state  the  penalty  section  
of   the   statute   of   which   the   accused   was   said   to   have   contravened.   AG  Federation  v  Isong:  
where  leave/consent  is  required  and  it  is  not  obtained,  the  trial  is  a  nullity  (so  fatal  to  the  
trial).  
The   effect   of   an   ambiguous   charge   will   always   depend   on   whether   the   ambiguity   was  
sufficient   to   mislead   the   accused   person,   to   the   extent   that   he   did   not   know   the   offence   for  
which  he  is  being  tried,  that  is,  the  importance  of  this  rule  is  that  the  accused  must  know  
clearly   why   he   is   before   the   court.   And   so   because   the   purpose   of   the   rules   is   to   give   an  
accused   person   adequate   notice   of   the   charge   against   him,   not   all   defects   or   ambiguities  
will  nullify  a  trial.  Sections  166  of   CPL,  and  222  of   CPCL  both  provide  that  no  omissions  or  
errors   in   a   charge   shall   be   regarded   as   material   unless   the   accused   person   was   in   fact  
misled  by  such  error  or  omission.  Consequently,  in  cases  where  the  errors  or  omissions  are  
minor  or  merely  technical,  the  court  has  refrained  from  nullifying  the  charges  only  because  
of  the  said  errors  or  omissions.    
In   Ogbomor   v.   The   State   (1985)   2   S.   C   289,   the   accused   person   was   charged   before   the  
Robbery  and  Firearms  tribunal  with  armed  robbery  contrary  to  the  Robbery  and  Firearms  
Act   1970   instead   of   the   Robbery   and   Firearms   (Special   Provisions)   Act   1970.   He   was  
convicted.  On  appeal  against  conviction,  it  was  contended  that  the  accused  was  charged  for  
an  offence  unknown  to  law  because  there  is  no  statute  known  as  the  Robbery  and  Firearms  
Act   1970.   The   Supreme   Court   held   that   mere  mis-­description  of  the  Robbery  and  Firearms  
Act   1970   was   minor   and   technical   as   the   accused   knew   under   which   statute   he   was   being  
tried.   Therefore   the   accused   was   not   prejudiced   by   the   defect   in   the   charge   and   the   appeal  
was  dismissed.  
In   Osigwe   v   Police   (1966)   NMLR   212   a   charge   was   challenged   to   be   bad   for   ambiguity  
because  the  accused  was  charged  under  a  presumably  non  existent  law,  the  Criminal  Code  
of   the   Federation   and   Lagos   instead   of   the   Criminal   Code.   On   appeal,   it   was   held   that   the  
defect   was   trivial   especially   as   the   appellant   as   well   as   his   legal   practitioner   knew   that   it  
was  the  Criminal  Code  that  was  referred  to.  
THE  RULE  AGAINST  DUPLICITY  
The  second  rule  of  drafting  charges  is  found  in  Sections  156  CPL,  212  CPCL  and  152  ACJL  
Lagos.    
Section  156  of  the  CPL  for  instance  provides    
For  every  distinct  offence  with  which  any  person  is  accused,  there  shall  be  a  
separate   charge   and   every   such   charge   shall   be   tried   separately   except   in  
such  case  mentioned  in  Sections  157  to  161  of  this  Act.  
This  rule  addresses  the  count  in  the  charge  as  in  the  case  of  ambiguity.  Generally,  a  count  in  
a  charge  sheet  should  contain  only  one  offence.  Therefore,  the  essence  of  the  rule  is  that  if  a  
person  commits  more  offences  than  one,  say  arson,  assault  and  robbery,  as  a  general  rule  
he   must   be   charged   for   each   offence   separately   and   must   be   tried   separately   for   each  
offence.   Charging   the   person   for   all   three   offences   in   one   count   offends   the   rule   against  
duplicity.  If  the  person  is  being  charged  for  murder  of  different  persons,  cannot  charge  him  
in  one  count.  Must  have  a  count  for  each  person  killed.  
 
In   Okeke   v  The   Police   10   WACA   363,   the   appellant   was   charged   and   convicted   for   the  
offence   of   demanding   and   receiving   contained   in   a   single   count.   On   appeal,   the   West  
African  Court  of  Appeal  held  that  demanding  and  receiving  constituted  two  separate  offences  
and  should  have  been  properly  charged  in  two  separate  counts,  although  in  the  same  charge  
sheet.  Similar  decisions  were  reached  in  Awobotu  v.  The  State  (1976)  5  SC  49;  Adebayo  
v.    The  State  (1987)  2  NWLR  468  (Pt.  57).    
The  exceptions  to  the  rule  against  duplicity  are:  
a) Statutory   Forms:   the   first   exception   to   the   rule   against   duplicity   is   contained   in  
Sections  150  &  463   CPL;  200  CPCL,  and  148(1)  ACJL.     These  sections  provide  to  the  
effect   that   where   charges   are   drafted   in   accordance   with   the   forms   set   out   in   the  
schedule  or  appendix  to  the  CPL  and  CPCL  respectively,  the  charge  would  be  good  
despite   the   fact   it   ordinarily   offends   the   rule   against   duplicity   by   joining   two  
offences  together  in  one  count.  An  example  of  a  charge  that  joins  two  offences  in  one  
count  is  that  found  in  Form  16  in  the  second  schedule  to  the  CPL  where  the  offences  
of   housebreaking   and   burglary   were   joined   with   that   of   stealing   where   a   person  
entered  into  a  dwelling  house  unlawfully  and  stole  there.  This  was  upheld  in   Willie  
John  v.  The  State  (1967)  NMLR  101.  
b) General   deficiency   of   money   –   This   exception   is   provided   for   under   Sections  
152(2)  CPL;  203  CPCL,  and  148(1)  ACJL.      
Section  152  (2)  CPL  for  instance  provides  that    
 

Where   the   accused   person   is   charged   with   criminal   breach   of   trust,  

fraudulent   appropriation   of   property,   fraudulent   falsification   of  
accounts  or  fraudulent  conversion,  it  shall  be  sufficient  to  specify  the  
gross   sum   in   respect   of   which   the   offences   alleged   to   have   been  
committed  and  the  dates  without  specifying  particular  items  or  exact  
dates   and   the   charge   so   framed   shall   be   deemed   to   be   a   charge   of   one  
offence  within  the  meaning  of  Section  156  of  the  Act.  

 
What   this   Section   simply   implies   is   that   where   a   person   is   alleged   with   offences  
involving   fraudulent   or   dishonest   dealing   with   property   especially,   money  
committed   over   a   period   of   time,   the   monies   so   misappropriated   may   be   summed  
up   and   the   person   charged   with   stealing   that   gross   sum   instead   of   charging   him  
distinctly   for   each   offence   of   stealing   as   the   prosecution   may   find   it   difficult   if   not  
impossible  to  ascertain  exactitude,  the  specific  date  and  time  and  amount  involved  
in  each  case.  Such  charge  will  be  good  and  considered  as  an  exception  to  Section  156  
CPL.  

 
Although   there   appears   to   be   no   legal   justification,   this   exception   has   been  
interpreted   to   relate   to   deficiency   of   money   alone,   and   not   other   properties.   In   R.  
 v.     Aniemeka   (1961)   1   All   NLR.   43  the  accused  was  charged  with  stealing  59  boxes  
of   cigarettes,   stolen   on   53   different   dates.   The   conviction   was   set   aside   on   the  
ground   that   the   alleged   offences   being   misappropriation   of   goods   and   not   money,  
ought   to   have   in   separate   counts   and   so   the   charge   was   bad   for   duplicity.   And   in  
Domingo   v.     R.   (1963)   1   All   NLR   81;   the   charge   against   the   accused   related   to  
stealing   several   goods   valued   at   about   N40,000   and   he   was   convicted.   His   appeal  
was  allowed  on  the  ground  that  the  charge  being  one  of  stealing  goods,  the  charges  
ought   to   have   been   contained   in   separate   counts   and   since   it   was   goods,   not   money,  
it  did  not  come  under  the  exception.      
 

In   R.   v.     Nwankwo   (1962)   All   NLR   64,   the   accused   was   convicted   of   stealing  
monies   for   which   he   had   issued   a   receipt   in   three   separate   receipt   books.   He   was  
charged   with   three   counts   of   stealing,   each   count   containing   the   sum   total   of   the  
monies   misappropriated   from   each   of   the   receipt   books,   he   appealed   against   his  
conviction,  contending  that  it  was  for  bad  duplicity.  Dismissing  the  appeal,  the  court  
held   that   since   the   act   of   the   accused   amounted   to   fraudulent   conversion   of   monies,  
the  monies  stolen  in  each  receipt  book  could  be  aggregated  and  contained  in  a  single  
count  under  the  exception  of  general  deficiency  of  money  to  the  rule  against  duplicity.  
Also   the   money   must   be   in   the   same   currency.   The   charge   must   state   the   date   of  
commencement  of  the  offence  and  the  date  when  it  ended.    
c) Offences  defined  in  the  alternative   –   This   exception   relates   to   offences   defined   in  
the   alternative   and   is   found   in   Sections   154(5)(a)   CPL   and   150(5)(a)   ACJL.   The  
exception  is  to  the  effect  that  where  a  statute  creates  an  offence  but  provides  for  the  
instances  in  which  the  offences  can  be  committed,  and  there  are  indeed  more  than  
one  way  in  which  the  offence  can  be  committed,  any  one  or  more  of  these  ways  may  
contained  and  stated  alternatively,  in  a  single  count  and  it  wound  not  offend  the  rule  
against   duplicity.   For   example,   Sections   406   Criminal   Code   which   provides   for   the  
offence  of  demanding  property  with  menaces  with  intent  to  steal  and  provides  the  
different   ways   in   which   the   offence   can   be   committed,   it   is   not   offensive   to   state   the  
different  ways  alternatively  in  one  count.    

 
In  Ogenyi   v.   Police   (1957)   NRNLR   140   the  accused  persons  were  charged  with  the  
offence   of   assaulting   a   Police   Officer   in   the   execution   of   his   duty   contrary   to   Section  
356   (2)   of   the   Criminal   Code.   The   Section   stated   three   alternative   ways   of  
committing  the  offence  to  wit,  assault,  resist  or  wilfully  obstruct  the  Police  Officer,  
these   three   ways   were   stated   in   one   count   and   the   accused   persons   were   convicted.  
On  appeal,  it  was  held  that  the  charge  was  not  bad  for  duplicity.  It  is  also  pertinent  
to   contrast   the   above   situation   from   one   where   a   section   contains   more   than   one  
offence,  e.g.  Section  98  Criminal  Code,  the  different  offences  should  be  contained  in  
different  counts  otherwise,  the  charge  that  would  be  bad  for  duplicity.    
 d) Identical  offences  committed  in  a  single  transaction  –  Where  an  accused  person  
is   alleged   to   have   committed   offences   of   the   same   kind   in   a   single   transaction,   he  
may   be   charged   with   the   commission   of   all   offences   in   one   count.   In   C.O.P   v.  
Oyewusi  (1952)  WRNLR  281,  the  accused,  a  police  officer  demanded  money  from  
five   persons   arrested   in   order   to   cease   prosecution   against   them.   One   of   the   five  
persons   arrested   gave   the   accused   money   for   and   on   behalf   of   himself   and   all   the  
other  arrested  persons.  The  accused  was  charged  and  convicted  with  the  offences  of  
demanding  money  with  menaces  and  official  corruption.  On  appeal,  the  court   held  
that   since  the  offences  committed  by  the  appellant  were  identical  offences  committed  
in  a  single  transaction,  it  was  permissible  to  lump  them  together  in  a  single  count  of  
the  charge,  and  the  appeal  dismissed.  
e) Overt  Acts  –  This  applies  to  acts  of  treason  or  treasonable  felony.  These  offences  are  
contained  in  Sections  37,  38  and  41  of  the  Criminal  Code  and  410,  411,  and  412  of  
the  Penal  Code.  In  drafting  a  charge  for  these  offences,  it  is  permissible  to  contain  in  
a  count  all  the  overt  acts  allegedly  done  by  an  accused  person  as  manifestations  of  
his   intention   to   commit   treason   or   treasonable   felony.   In   R.  v.  Omisade  (1964)  All  
NLR   233,   the   accused   persons   where   charged   inter   alia   with   the   offence   of  
treasonable   felony.   All   the   overt   acts   allegedly   done   in   manifestation   of   the  
treasonable  felony  by  the  accused  were  contained  in  a  single  count.  Thus,  the  charge  
could   contain   that   they   trained   some   men   in   Ghana,   they   were   in   possession   of  
explosives  etc.    
RULE  AGAINST  MISJOINDER  OF  OFFENCES  

The  third  rule  of  drafting  charges  is  the  rule  against  misjoinder  of  offences.  Just  like  the  rule  
against   duplicity,   the   rule   finds   expression   in   the   provisions   of   Sections   156   CPL;   212  
CPCL   and   152   ACJL.   What   this   rule   envisages   is   that   as   a   general   rule,   for   every   distinct  
offence  with  which  a  person  is  accused,  there  must  be  a  separate  charge  contained  in  a  charge  
sheet   which   must   be   tried   separately.  For  example,  if  a  person  is  accused  of  committing  the  
offence  of  manslaughter,  breach  of  trust  and  rape,  he  must  be  charged  separately  for  each  
of  these  offences.  However,  if  the  person  is  charged  for  all  the  offences  in  one  charge  sheet,  
the   charge   would   be   bad   for   mis-­‐joinder   of   offences   and   would   therefore   be   defective.  
Unlike   the   first   two   rules,   this   rule   attaches   to   the   entire   charge   sheet   and   not   the  
individual  count.    
There   are   however   exceptions   to   this   rule   which   are   contained   in   Sections   157   to   161  CPL;  
213  to  216  CPCL  and  153  ACJL.  The  exceptions  are:  
a) Offences   committed   within   12   months   –   Section   157   CPL   provides   that   any  
person   accused   of   more   than   one   offence,   committed   within   12   months,   may   be  
charged   with   or   not   more   than   three   of   such   offences   in   the   same   charge   sheet.   It   is  
not  necessary  that  the  three  offences  were  committed  against  the  same  person  or  in  
respect  of  the  same  thing  nor  that  the  three  offences  must  be  of  the  same  kind.  See  
also   Sections   153(1)   ACJL   and   213   CPCL.   In   Dau  v.  Kano  Native  Authority  (1946)  
12   WACA   14,  the  appellant  was  convicted  by  the  Magistrate  Court  Kano  on  seven  
charges  of  offences  against  the  Money  Lenders  Ordinance.  The  West  African  Court  of  
 Appeal   held   that   subject  to  the  limitations  that  the  offences  must  not  exceed  three  in  
number,   and   must   be   committed   within   a   period   of   12   months,   the   offences   alleged  
against   the   accused   may   be   dissimilar   and   may   be   in   respect   of   the   same   person   or  
thing  or  of  different  persons  or  things.    
b) Different   offences   committed   in   the   course   of   the   same   transaction   –   all  
offences   committed   by   a   person   in   the   course   of   the   same   transaction   may   be  
charged   together   in   one   charge   sheet.   This   is   the   thrust   of   Sections   158   CPL;  
section   214(1)   CPCL   and   153   (iii)   ACJL.   To   come   within   this   exception,   the  
offences  must  be  so  connected  as  to  form  part  of  the  same  transaction.  The  test  of  
what   amounts   to   “course   of   the   same   transaction”   was   laid   down   by   the   Supreme  
Court  in  Haruna   &   Ors   v.   The   State   (1972)   1   All   NLR   (Pt.   2)   302   at   318   in  the  
words  of  Atanda  Fatayi  Williams  JSC  (as  he  then  was)  in  the  following  words:  

“whether  two  or  more  acts  constitute  the  ‘same  transaction’  depends  on  
the  proximity  of  time  and  place,  continuity  of  action,  and  community  of  
purpose   or   design   relative   to   the   particular   acts…   Thus,   in   order   to  
constitute   one   transaction,   all   the   acts   from   the   very   beginning   should  
be   either   in   contemplation   or   should   form   the   component   parts   of   a  
whole”.  
Thus  the  test  requires  a  consideration  of  three  factors  namely:  
- Proximity  of  time  and  place;  or  

- Continuity  of  action;  or  

- Community  of  purpose  or  design.  
This   exception   however   does   not   limit   the   number   of   offences,   which   may   be  
charged   in   the   same   charge   sheet.   Also,   there   is   no   time   frame   within   which   the  
offences  may  be  committed  before  they  can  be  charged  together.  Thus  in  Onubaka   v  
R   4   SC   267  the  Defendant  was  charged  with  manslaughter  and  giving  an  unlawful  
injection  and  the  Court  upheld  the  charge.  Also  in  Lawson   v.   The   State   (1975)   4   SC  
115,   the   offences   of   conspiracy   to   commit   a   felony,   unlawful   possession   of   Indian  
hemp,   attempting   to   export   Indian   hemp,   and   making   false   declarations   to   the  
Department   of   Customs   where   charged   together   in   the   same   charge   sheet.   The  
offences  were  held  to  be  validly  charged  and  consequently,  did  not  violate  the  rule  
against  misjoinder  of  offences.  See  also  The  State  v.  Adamu  (1966)  NNLR  167.  
c) Offences   comprising   the   same   elements   but   defined   under   different   laws   –  
Offences  falling  within  two  or  more  definitions  in  any  written  law  but  are  committed  
by  the  same  act  or  omission  –  Section  159  CPL.  For  example,  a  person  who  causes  
the   death   of   another   while   driving   in   a   reckless   manner   may   be   charged   with  
manslaughter  under  the  Criminal  Code  Act  and  causing  death  by  dangerous  driving  
under  the  Road  Traffic  Law  in  the  same  charge  sheet.  This  is  possible  even  though  
both  acts  are  offences  under  two  different  laws.  Similarly  a  person  can  be  charged  
with  bigamy  under  the  Criminal  Code  as  well  as  under  the  Marriage  Act.  In  Elliot  v.  
 C.O.P  (1960)  WRNLR  128,  the  accused  was  arraigned  on  a  charge  sheet  containing  
two   counts.   One   count   alleged   official   corruption   contrary   to   section   98(2)   of   the  
Criminal  Code,  and  the  other  count  alleged  corruption  of  public  officers  contrary  to  
section   42(2)   of   the   Public   Administration   Law   of   1959.   The   offences   arose   out   of  
the   same   facts   and   the   accused   was   convicted   on   both   counts.   On   appeal   against  
conviction,   the   High   Court   held   that   both   counts   could   be   preferred   under   different  
laws  constituting  the  offence  by  virtue  of  section  159  of  the  CPL,  the  accused  could  only  
be   convicted   on   one   count.   Thus,   that   it   was   wrong   for   the   lower   court   to   have  
convicted   on   both   counts,   and   the   conviction   on   the   first   count   was   set   aside   while   the  
other  was  affirmed.  
d) Offences  comprising  acts  or  omissions  which  by  themselves  or  in  conjunction  
with   others,   constitute   a   different   offence.   Acts   constituting   one   offence   but  
constituting   a   different   offence   when   combined,   may   be   charged   together   for  
offences  so  constituted  –  Section   160   CPL.   For  example,  an  offence  may  comprise  
several   acts   or   omissions.   An   act   or   omission   may   constitute   an   offence,   a  
combination  of  such  acts  or  omissions  may  singularly  constitute  a  different  offence.  
Section   160   CPL   permits   the   joining   of   such   diverse   offences   in   the   same   charge  
sheet.   The   joinder   of   such   offences   in   the   same   charge   sheet   is   not   a   violation   of   the  
rule  against  misjoinder  of  offences  e.g.  forging  an  LLB  certificate  to  obtain  admission  
to   the   law   school   would   constitute   the   offence   of   uttering   a   forged   document   and  
procuring   admission   by   fraud.   A   leading   B   to   a   house   and   forcefully   removing   B’s  
clothes   and   raping   B   and   then   detaining   B   for   two   weeks   before   she   is   rescued  
would  constitute  the  offences  of  assault,  wrongful  confinement,  rape  and  abduction    

e) Where  it  is  doubtful  which  of  several  offences,  the  facts  which  can  be  proved  
constitute.   Where   it   is   doubtful   which   of   several   offences   has   been   committed,  
offences   suspected   by   facts   available   may   be   charged   together   in   alternatives   e.g.  
stealing,   criminal   misappropriation,   criminal   breach   of   trust,   receiving   stolen   goods,  
obtaining  by  false  pretences  –  Sections  161  CPL;  216  CPCL.  He  may  be:  
i. Charged  with  having  committed  all  of  such  offences;  or  

ii. Charged  with  having  committed  some  of  such  offences,  or  

iii. Charged  in  the  alternative  with  having  committed  some  one  or  other  
of  the  said  offences.  

All  the  charges  may  be  contained  in  the  same  charge  sheet  without  violating  the  rule  
against   misjoinder   of   offences.   This   is   because   an   accused   cannot   be   punished   twice  
for  the  same  act  or  omission  –  Azie  v.  The  State  (1973)  3  SC  149  at  161,  Inspector  
General  of  Police  v  Bakare  (1957)  WRNLR  123.  
f) Offences   committed   in   any   of   several   occasions   –   When   it   is  
doubtful   on   which   occasion   an   offence   has   been   committed,   an   accused   may   be  
charged   with   having   committed   an   offence   alternatively   on   one   or   other   of   such  
occasions.  Section  215  CPCL.   For  example,  in  the  case  of  burglary  and  stealing  where  
it  is  difficult  to  state  what  time  the  offence  was  actually  committed    
 RULE  AGAINST  MISJOINDER  OF  OFFENDERS  
As   a   general   rule,   every   person   who   is   accused   of   an   offence   must   be   charged   and   tried  
separately  for  the  offence  alleged  against  him.  For  example,  if  A  is  accused  of  rape,  B  is  
accused  of  murder  and  C  is  accused  of  arson,  the  alleged  offenders  A,  B  and  C  must  be  
charged   separately   and   tried   separately   for   the   offences   of   rape,   murder   and   arson  
respectively   otherwise   the   charge   would   be   a   bad   charge   for   misjoinder   of   offenders.   It  
is  immaterial  that  they  did  such  offence  at  the  same  time  and  date  or  in  the  same  place.  

There   are   exceptions   to   this   rule   which   are   contained   in   Sections   155   CPL;   221   CPCL  
and  151  ACJL.  

a) Persons   accused   jointly   of   committing   the   same   offence–   When  

more  than  one  offender  jointly  commit  the  same  offence(s),  such  offence(s)  is  triable  
and   chargeable   jointly   against   such   persons   –   Sections   155   CPL;   221(a)   CPCL   and  
151   (a)   ACJL.  They   may   not   only   be   charged   in   the   same   charge   sheet,   but   they   may  
also  be  charged  in  one  single  count  with  the  alleged  offence.  In  Okojie  &  Ors  v.  C.O.P  
(1961)   WRNLR   91,   the   five   accused   persons   (police   officers)   arrested   the  
complainant  under  a  warrant  of  arrest  and  took  him  to  the  court  hall.  At  the  court  
hall,  all  the  accused  took  part  in  the  assault  on  the  complainant.  The  first  accused  hit  
the   complainant   on   the   head,   the   second   accused   sat   on   him,   the   third   accused  
kicked  him  on  the  chest,  the  fourth  accused  blocked  the  entrance  to  the  court  hall  to  
prevent   people   from   entering   to   rescue   the   complainant,   and   the   fifth   accused  
slapped   the   complainant   in   the   face.   The   accused   persons   were   charged   and  
convicted   jointly   in   the   same   charge   sheet   and   tried   for   the   offence   of   assault  
occasioning   harm.   On   appeal   against   conviction,   it   was   contended   inter  alia,  that   the  
accused  persons  ought  to  have  been  charged  separately,  and  that  the  charge  sheet  
on  which  they  were  arraigned  was  bad  for  misjoinder  of  offenders.  It  dismissing  the  
appeal,   the   appellate   court   cited   section   155   of   the   CPL,   and   held   that   as   the  
appellants  jointly  committed  the  assault,  they  were  properly  charged  together.  
b) Persons  accused  of  committing  different  offences  in  the  course  of  
the  same  transaction.  This   exception   is   found   in   Sections   155   CPL;   Section   221(d)  
CPCL   and  151  (a)  ACJL.   Where  two  or  more  persons  commit  different  offences  in  the  
course  of  the  same  transaction,  they  may  be  charged  and  tried  together  on  the  same  
charge   sheet.   As   earlier   highlighted,   in   determining   when   a   criminal   transaction  
begins   and   ends,   in   order   to   ascertain   the   offences   that   were   committed   in   the  
course   of   the   same   transaction,   the   test   to   be   applied   was   laid   down   by   Fatayi  
Williams  J.S.C  (as  he  then  was)  in  Haruna  &  Ors.  v.  The  State  (supra),  to  include  
consideration  of:  Proximity  of  time  and  place;  or  Continuity  of  action;  or  Community  
of   purpose   or   design.   In   this   case,   the   accused   persons   were   alleged   to   have  
conspired  together  in  Lagos  to  obtain  payment  in  Bida,  in  Niger  State  using  forged  
vouchers.  
The  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  offences  were  committed  in  the  course  of  the  same  
transaction,   as   the   offenders   had   a   common   design   or   purpose   in   committing   the  
 offences.   It   cited   section   221(d)   of   the   CPCL,   and   held   that   the   offenders   were  
properly  charged  together.  
c) Persons   accused   of   the   same   offence   committed   in   the   course   of   the   same  
transaction   –   When   more   than   one   offender   are   accused   of   committing   the   same  
offence   in   course   of   same   transaction,   they   may   be   charged   together   –   Section  
221(a)  CPCL.  There  is  no  express  equivalent  in  the  CPL  or  ACJL  but  it  can  be  implied  
having  regard  to  the  preceding  paragraph.    

d) Persons   accused   of   committing   an   offence   and   persons   accused   of   aiding,  

abetting   or   attempting   to   commit   the   same   offence   –Under   Sections   155   CPL;  
221(b)  CPCL  and  151  (b)  ACJL  all  persons  accused  of  committing  an  offence  may  be  
tried   together   with   any   other   person   accused   of   procuring,   counselling,   or   aiding  
and  abetting  the  commission  of  the  offence.  Persons  attempting  to  commit  the  same  
kind   of   offence   which   another   person   has   already   committed   can   also   be   charged  
jointly   in   the   same   charge   sheet.   For   example,   where   A   and   B   steals,   and   B   gets  
caught  stealing  while  A  escapes.  If  A  is  later  caught,  A  and  B  can  be  charged  jointly;  A  
with  stealing  and  B  with  attempting  to  steal.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  
principle  of  joint  criminal  liability  contained  in  Sections  8,9,10  of  the  Criminal  Code  
and  Sections  78,79,80  Penal  Code.    
e) Persons   accused   of   committing   offences   that   are   related   to   each   other   –  
Persons   accused   of   offences   such   as   stealing,   extortion,   criminal   misappropriation,  
criminal  breach  of  trust  and  persons  accused  of  receiving  or  retaining  or  assisting  in  
the   disposal   or   concealment   of   the   subject   matter   of   such   property   obtained   as   a  
result  of  the  said  offences  –  Section  155   CPL;  221(e)  and  (f)  CPCL  and  151  (c)  ACJL.  
The   only   caveat   here   is   that   the   offences   must   be   in   relation   to   one   property.   It  
doesn’t  extend  to  acts  of  stealing,  committed  by  one  person,  another  act  of  receiving  
committed   by   another   person   in   a   different   setting.   Thus,   where   any   more   than   one  
person  commits  any  of  the  offences  in  relation  to  one  property,  they  may  be  charged  
and  tried  together.    

f) Persons  accused  of  offences  committed  during  a  fight  or  series  of  fights  arising  
out   of   another   fight,   and   persons   accused   of   abetting   any   of   these   offences   –  
This  is  not  available  under  the  CPL  or  ACJL,  but  it  is  available  under  Section  221(g)  
CPCL.   An   alleged   offender   can   only   be   charged   together   with   another   alleged  
offender   or   offenders   in   one   charge   sheet   for   an   offence   allegedly   committed   by  
them,  if  he  falls  within  any  or  all  of  the  exceptions  to  the  rule  against  misjoinder  of  
offenders.  The  names  of  the  alleged  offenders  to  be  tried  jointly  must  appear  in  the  
title  of  the  charge  sheet.  

Notwithstanding  all  the  above  exceptions  with  respect  to  mis-­‐joinder  of  offenders  and  mis-­‐
joinder  of  offences,  the  Court  has  a  discretion  considering  the  circumstances  of  the  case  to  
order  separate  trials  for  the  accused  person.  Section  213  CPCL  empowers  the  Ct  to  order  
separate  trials  for  offences  of  like  character  committed  by  the  same  person.      

EFFECT  OF  BREACH  OF  EACH  RULE  

Generally  accused  must  have  been  myself  by  defect  to  have  trial  set  aside:  Ogunjobi  v  FRN  
(2013),  section  166  CPL,  206  CPCL,  158  ACJL.  CT  will  also  look  at  whether  it  is  something  
trivial  or  fundamental  to  decide  whether  to  vitiate  the  trial:  Compare  A-­G  Western  
Region  v  CFAO  (1958),  Ogbomor  v  State  (1985).    
BREACH  OF  THE  RULE  AGAINST  AMBIGUITY  
As  the  whole  essence  of  this  rule  is  to  give  an  accused  person  notice  of  the  charge  against  
him  some  errors  on  the  part  of  the  prosecutor  will  not  essentially  invalidate  the  charge  or  
lead   the   court   to   set   aside   any   conviction   based   on   the   charge   –   Duru   v.   The   Police   (1960)  
L.L.R   130;   Ogbomor   v.   The   State   (1985)   1   NWLR   223;   Ogbudu   v.   The   State   (1987)   3   S.C.  
497;  Sugh  v.  The  State  (1988)  NWLR  475.  In  the  following  cases  however,  the  court  held  
that  the  errors  in  the  charges  were  fundamental.  Generally,  the  court  does  not  regard  any  
omission  or  errors  in  the  charge  as  material  except  the  accused  was  in  fact  misled  by  such  
error  or  omission.  
In  Obakpolor  v.  The  State  (1991)  1  N.W.L.R,  113,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  objection  to  
a  defective  charge  should  be  made  immediately  after  the  charge  is  read  over  (at  arraignment)  
and  explained  to  accused  because  pleading  to  such  a  charge  is  a  submission  to  jurisdiction,  if  
the   defect   does   not   deprive   the   court   of   its   jurisdiction.   This   is   because   the   rule   as   to  
ambiguity  is  at  this  time  of  arraignment    
BREACH  OF  THE  RULE  AGAINST  DUPLICITY  
On   the   effect   of   a   charge   defective   by   reason   of   duplicity,   the   consensus   of   judicial   and  
academic   opinion   is   that   a   conviction   based   on   such   count   shall   not   be   set   aside   for   reason  
only   that   it   violated   the   rule   against   duplicity,   unless   the   accused   person   was   misled   or  
prejudiced  in  his  defence  or  he  was  by  reason  of  the  duplicity  not  sure  of  what  charge  he  
was  to  face.  So  the  Courts  held  in  Onakoya   v   FRN   (2002)   6   SC   (pt   2)   220;   Okeke   v   Police  
(supra);  State  v  Gwonto  (1983)  3  SC  62  contrasting  the  earlier  decision  in  the  older  case  
of  R   v   Achie   (1947)   12   WACA   209.   Awobotu  versus  The  State  (1976)  5  S.C.  49.  Objection  
should  also  be  raised  immediately  the  charge  is  read  over  to  the  accused  and  not  later  

BREACH  OF  THE  RULE  AGAINST  MISJOINDER  OF  OFFENCES:  If  a  trial  court  enters  a  
verdict  of  conviction  on  one  of  the  counts  and  acquits  on  others,  an  appellate  court  may  set  
aside  the  conviction.  
BREACH  OF  THE  RULE  AGAINST  MISJOINDER  OF  OFFFENDERS:  Where  an  accused  
person  requires  a  separate  trial,  the  counsel  shall  apply  for  such  separate  trial  before  the  
joint  trial  commences.  Where  a  defendant  fails,  refuses  or  neglects  to  apply  for  separate  
trials,  he  will  not  be  heard  to  complain  that  the  court  ought  to  have  ordered  separated  
trials.  Therefore  the  trial  shall  not  be  vitiated  unless  there  is  manifest  embarrassment  or  
prejudice  to  any  of  the  accused  persons.  In  Mailayi  &  Anor.  v.  The  State  (1968)  1  All  NLR  
116,  the  accused  persons  were  charged  and  tried  together  for  culpable  homicide  
punishable  with  death,  abetment  and  unlawful  assembly.  They  were  convicted.  They  
challenged  their  conviction  on  the  ground  that  the  trial  judge  should  have  ordered  separate  
trials.  Their  appeal  was  dismissed.  
  
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

WEEK  9  
CHARGES  (CONTD)  
EFFECT  OF  A  DEFECTIVE  CHARGE  
Any  defect  in  a  charge  (count)  or  the  entire  charge  sheet  can  be  amended  in  the  course  of  a  
trial  at  any  time  before  judgment  is  delivered.  The  Court  is  empowered  to  amend  a  charge  
before  judgment  and  this  amendment  may  take  the  form  of  addition,  deletion,  alteration  or  
even  substitution.  Uket  v  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria  (2008)  FWLR  (pt  411)  92;  State  v  
Olatunji  (2003)  FWLR  (pt  155)  695.  
Section  166  of  the  CPL  provides  that:  
“no  error  in  stating  the  offence  or  the  particulars  required  to  be  stated  in  the  
charge   and   no   omission   to   state   the   offence   or   those   particulars   shall   be  
regarded   at   any   stage   of   the   case   as   material   unless   the   accused   was   in   fact  
misled  by  such  error  or  omission.”  
From   the   above   provision,   it   could   be   said   that   the   law   distinguishes   between   firstly,  
defects   which   are   material   and   fundamental   and   undoubtedly   have   the   effect   of   misleading  
the   accused   in   which   case   the   trial   will   be   set   aside   due   to   the   defective   charge;   and  
secondly,   defects   which   are   immaterial   and   trivial   and   ought   not   to   mislead   the   accused,   in  
which  case  the  trial  will  not  be  set  aside.  

In  other  words,  what  will  determine  whether  the  conviction  will  be  upheld  or  set  aside  is  
the  effect  the  defect  had  on  the  accused.  Therefore  if:  

a) In  the  trial,  the  accused  was  prejudiced  in  the  conduct  of  his  defence;  or  
b) In  the  trial,  the  defect  brought  about  the  conviction  of  the  accused  person;  or  
c) In   the   trial,   the   defect   so   affected   the   proceedings   that   they   fall   short   of   the  
requirement  that  justice  must  not  only  be  done  but  must  manifestly  be  seen  to  be.  
A  conviction  will  be  set  aside  for  miscarriage  of  justice.  However,  if  despite  the  defect  of  the  
charge,   the   accused   person   is   not   so   affected   by   the   charge,   then   the   conviction   will   be  
upheld  on  appeal.    

In   Attorney-­General   of   Western   Region   v.   CFAO   (1958)   WRNLR   6,   the   appellant  

company   was   charged   with   unlawful   occupation   of   land.   The   charge   did   not   state   the  
statute   alleged   to   have   been   contravened.   The   appellant   company   and   the   Magistrate  
presumed   that   the   case   was   brought   under   the   Crown   Lands   Ordinance.   The   Magistrate  
convicted   the   appellant   company.   On   appeal   against   conviction,   the   High   Court   held   that  
failure   to   state   in   the   charge   the   statute   alleged   to   have   been   contravened   by   the   appellant  
company  was  a  material  defect.  Thus,  the  trial  was  vitiated  and  a  retrial  ordered.  

However,   where   the   defect   in   the   charge   is   an   error   in   stating   the   exact   title   of   the  
enactment  alleged  to  have  been  contravened  by  the  accused,  the  defect  is  immaterial  and  
the  trial  will  not  be  set  aside.  In  Ogbomor  v.  The  State  (1985)  2  SC  289,  the  accused  was  
charged   before   the   Robbery   and   Firearms   tribunal   with   armed   robbery   contrary   to   the  
Robbery   and   Firearms   Act   1970.   He   was   convicted.   On   appeal   against   conviction,   it   was  
contended  that  the  accused  was  charged  for  an  offence  unknown  to  law  because  there  is  no  
statute   known   as   the   Robbery   and   Firearms   Act,   1970.   The   Supreme   Court   rejected   the  
counsel’s   contention.   It   held   that   the   offence   of   armed   robbery   is   known   to   law.   It   is  
contained  in  both  the  Criminal  Code  and  in  the  Robbery  and  Firearms  (Special  Provisions)  
Act   1970.   Thus,   it   held   that   there   was   an   omission   of   the   words   “Special   Provisions”   on   the  
face  of  the  charge  but  the  defect  in  the  charge  i.e.  the  mis-­‐description  of  the  statute  was  of  a  
trivial   and   material   nature,   as   the   accused   knew   under   which   statute   he   was   being   tried.  
Therefore,  the  accused  was  not  prejudiced  by  the  defect  in  the  charge  and  the  appeal  was  
dismissed.  
It  should  be  noted  that  once  a  charge  discloses  an  offence  known  to  law,  any  defect  in  the  
charge  shall  not  render  it  bad  in  law  except  the  accused  person  was  misled  by  the  defect  in  
the   conduct   of   his   defence   –   Ijeoma   v.   R.   (1962)   2   SCNLR   157;   Obumselu   v.   C.   O.   P  
(1958)  SCNLR  464.  
 AMENDMENT  OF  DEFECTIVE  CHARGES  
A  defective  charge  is  one  that  runs  short  of  the  principles/rules  of  drafting.  That  is,  it  does  
not  comply  with  any  of  the  rules  of  drafting  charges.  A  trial  on  a  defective  charge  does  not  
render   the   trial   void   rather   the   court   considers   the   effect   of   the   defective   nature   of   the  
charge  on  the  accused.  
This   may   take   various   forms   e.g.   deletion   of   errors,   addition   or   inclusion   of   essential  
particulars   that   were   advertently   omitted,   substitution   of   a   correct   section   of   the   law   for  
one  incorrectly  stated,  etc.  Uket  v  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria  (supra);  State  v  Olatunji  
(supra);   Nigeria   Airforce   v   James   (2003)   FWLR   (pt   143)   257   Okwechime   v   Police   1  
FSC  73  .    
Thus,  a  defective  charge  may  be  amended  provided  that:  
1. The  defect  is  not  incurable  

2. The   amendment   is   not   intended   only   to   bring   the   offence   charged   within   the  
jurisdiction  of  the  court  –  C.  O.  P  v.  Jinadu  Ilorin(1965)  NNLR  63  

3. The  amendment  will  not  cause  injustice  to  the  accused  person.  In  Attorney-­General  
(Federation)  v.  Isong  (1986)  1  QLRN,  an  information  was  filed  against  the  accused  
person   without   the   consent   or   direction   of   a   High   Court   Judge.   The   charge   was  
brought   under   the   section,   which   only   defines   the   offence   in   the   Firearms   Act   1966.  
The  prosecutor  applied  to  amend  the  charge.  The  court  rejected  the  application  for  
amendment  on  the  ground  that  it  would  give  the  prosecutor  an  opportunity  to  re-­‐try  
the  accused  person;  it  was  therefore  prejudicial  to  the  accused  since  the  information  
was  not  properly  obtained  (information  was  quashed)  
4. Where   the   error   to   be   amended   is   frivolous,   the   court   may   be   reluctant   to   go  
through  the  process  of  amendment  –  Ogbomor  v.  The  State  (supra).  
Amendment   of   a   defective   charge   may   therefore   be   made   before   the   accused   person   has  
pleaded   to   the   charge   or   after   the   accused   person   has   pleaded   to   the   charge   but   before  
judgment.   Note   in   DURU   v   COP:   charge   allowed   to   be   amended   on   the   day   reserved   for  
judgment  
Amendment  of  a  charge  before  plea  –  Sections  162  CPL;  207  CPCL;  and  154  ACJL.  

Amendment  to  a  charge  can  be  done  even  before  the  accused  person  is  called  upon  to  enter  
his  plea.  It  is  often  said  that  the  leave  of  the  court  is  not  required  to  amend  a  charge  if  the  
accused   has   not   pleaded   to   it   but   after   the   plea   of   the   accused   has   been   taken,   leave   is  
required  and  Section  162  of  CPL  is  cited  in  support  of  that  assertion  as  well  as  the  case  of  
Uguru  v.  The  State  (2002)  4  SC  (Pt.  2)  13.  While  this  is  understandable  in  the  light  of  the  
fact   that   before   arraignment,   the   accused   is   not   before   the   court   and   may   not   even   be  
aware  of  the  charge  against  him  and  hence  cannot  be  prejudiced  by  the  amendment,  while  
there   can   equally   be   no   inconvenience   to   the   Court   by   the   amendment.   This   clearly   applies  
to   the   Magistrate   Court   in   the   South.   For   the   Magistrate   in   the   North,   the   question   of  
applying  to  him  for  an  amendment  does  not  arise  since  it  is  the  Magistrate  who  drafts  the  
charge  and  gives  directive  for  trial  
However,  it  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  it  is  necessary  to  notify  the  Court  of  any  such  
amendment.   Furthermore,   for   trials   before   High   Courts   where   leave   of   court   was   sought   to  
prefer   the   charge   and   consent   was   sought   and   obtained   to   file   the   information   after   the  
Judge   was   satisfied   that   there   was   a   prima   facie   case   based   on   the   proof   of   evidence   had  
been  made  out,  as  is  the  case  in  the  North  and  South  respectively  (exception  of  Lagos),  it  
would  appear  that  an  amendment  to  the  charge  would  equally  require  the  Court’s  consent  
especially   to   ensure   that   the   amendment   also   satisfies   the   same   requirement   unless   the  
new   charge   can   be   supported   by   the   proof   of   evidence   filed   for   the   original   charge.   The  
prosecution  may  therefore  seek  leave  of  the  trial  court  by  an  oral  application,  to  amend  a  
defective  charge.    

Therefore,   when   an   accused   person   has   not   pleaded   to   a   charge,   leave   of   court   may   or   may  
not  be  required  to  amend  the  charge.  If  it  is  a  charge  in  the  Magistrates’  Courts  under  the  
CPL,   it   is   submitted   that   an   entirely   new   charge   may   be   substituted   for   the   original   charge.  
If   it   is   a   charge   by   way   of   information   in   the   High   Court   under   the   CPL,   an   entirely   new  
charge   cannot   be   substituted   for   the   original   charge   except   a   charge   of   a   previous  
conviction   of   an   offence   or   of   being   a   habitual   criminal   or   drunkard   –   Section   340(2)   of  
CPL.   This   is   because   the   consent   of   the   judge   was   obtained   to   the   original   charge,   and,  
unless   the   new   charge   can   be   supported   by   the   proof   of   evidence   filed   for   the   original  
charge  it  would  be  necessary  to  obtain  a  fresh  consent  before  the  information  can  be  filed.  
Where  a  charge  is  amended  before  the  accused  person  has  been  called  upon  to  enter  a  plea,  
the   court   is   not   under   any   obligation   to   comply   with   the   post   amendment   procedures  
because  the  accused  has  not  pleaded  to  the  charge  before  it  is  amended.  

Amendment  of  a  charge  after  plea  –  Sections  163  CPL;  208  CPCL;  and  155  ACJL.  
The   trial   court   may   also   amend   the   charge   suo  motu.   What   this   means   is   that,   under   the  
CPL,  the  court  is  to  grant  leave  to  amend  the  charge  or  to  amend  a  defective  charge  at  any  
time   because   it   is   the   duty   of   the   prosecution   to   draft   a   charge   and   not   that   of   the   court.  
Under  the  CPCL,  it  is  the  magistrate  who  drafts  the  charge  and  directs  that  the  accused  be  
tried  by  the  court  with  jurisdiction.  It  is  submitted  that  unlike  under  the  CPL,  a  magistrate  
may  exceed  the  bounds  of  mere  amendment  and  frame  an  entirely  new  charge,  if  the  new  
charge  can  be  supported  by  the  evidence  adduced  at  the  pre-­‐trial  stage.  

However,  where  a  criminal  action  is  brought  in  the  High  Court  by  a  charge  drafted  by  a  law  
officer   by   virtue   of   Section   185(b)   of   CPCL,  the   same   rules   of   amendment   as   under   the   CPL  
applies.   That   is,   the   Judge   cannot   in   the   process   of   amendment   frame   an   entirely   new  
charge,  independent  of  the  original  charge.  In  The   State   v.   The   Chief   Magistrate   Aboh-­
Maise,   Ex-­parte   Onukwue   (1978)   1   LRN   316,   after   the   accused   persons   had   pleaded  
guilty  to  a  charge  of  affray,  the  Magistrate  upon  questioning,  found  that  one  of  the  accused  
persons  assaulted  the  other.  Consequently,  he  rejected  the  plea  of  the  accused  and  framed  a  
new   charge   of   assault   against   him.   The   charge   was   preferred   in   the   name   of   the  
Commissioner   of   Police   but   the   Magistrate   signed   it.   The   accused   persons   brought   an  
application   to   the   High   Court   for   the   prerogative   order   of   prohibition   to   prevent   the  
Magistrate   from   trying   him   on   the   new   charge.   The   High   Court   held   that   although   a   trial  
magistrate   in   amending   a   charge   could   frame   or   substitute   an   entirely   new   charge,   the  
substituted  charge  must  be  sustainable  under  the  original  imperfect  charge;  the  substituted  
charge   merely   continuing   the   life   of   the   original   charge.   Thus,   there   must   be   a   nexus  
between  the  substituted  charge  and  the  original  charge.  The  substituted  charge  should  bear  
the   same   charge   number   and   be   against   the   same   person   or   persons.   It   cannot   be   an  
independent  and  separate  charge,  co-­‐existing  with  the  original  charge.  Thus,  the  court  held  
that   the   magistrate   did   not   merely   amend   an   existing   charge   –   he   framed   an   entirely  
independent  charge.  The  order  of  prohibition  was  granted.  
The   new   charge   must   be   similar   to   or   bear   a   close   relationship   to   the   previous   charge  
before   it   can   be   permitted   by   way   of   an   amendment.   In   Okwechime  v.  Inspector-­General  
of   Police   1   FSC   73,   after   plea,   the   charge   against   the   accused   person   was   amended.   The  
offence   of   receiving   property,   being   a   public   officer   in   order   to   show   favour,   contrary   to  
section   100   of   the   Criminal   Code,   was   amended   to   section   99   of   the   Criminal   Code.   The  
accused  was  convicted.  On  appeal,  the  court  held  that  in  the  process  of  amendment,  a  new  
charge  or  accusation  could  be  substituted,  and  the  appeal  was  dismissed.  Also,  in  Elumelu  
v.  Inspector-­General  of  Police  (1957)  NRNLR  17,  the  charge  sheet  containing  six  counts  
of  extortion  was  amended  to  five  counts  of  stealing  and  one  of  extortion  after  the  accused  
person  had  pleaded  to  the  previous  charge.  

In  the  above  cases,  the  amendments  were  possible  because  the  new  charges  were  related  
to   the   previous   charges   and   continued   the   lives   of   the   previous   charges.   To   determine  
whether   the   substitution   of   a   new   charge   or   offence,   for   the   original   charge   or   offence  
would  be  permitted  by  way  of  amendment,  the  original  charge  has  to  be  compared  with  the  
new  charge  sought  to  be  substituted.  
Whenever  a  charge  is  amended  after  the  accused  person  had  pleaded  to  it,  the  court  must  
comply   with   the   mandatory   post   amendment   procedures   laid   down   in   Sections   163,   164  
and  165  of  CPL;  and  208(2),  209,  210,  and  211  of  CPCL.  

 
PROCEDURE  FOR  AMENDMENT  OF  CHARGES  

Where   an   accused   person   has   already   pleaded   to   the   charge   before   it   is   amended,   the  
Prosecutor  seeking  to  amend  a  charge  may  adopt  any  of  the  following  two  methods:  
1. The   prosecutor   may   make   an   oral   application   to   amend   the   charge   –   this   is  
sought   orally   to   amend   the   charge.   If   the   court   grants   it,   it   substitutes   the   prior  
charge  and  is  corrected  on  the  face  of  the  defective  charge,  but  if  the  amendment  is  
of  a  serious  nature  it  is  doubtful  that  the  court  will  grant  such  an  amendment  and  as  
such,  the  original  charge  shall  remain  and  the  trial  shall  proceed  upon  it.  
This  method  is  adopted  in  cases  where  the  offence  is  a  minor  one  e.g.  clerical  errors,  
dates,  etc.  
 2. The  prosecutor  may  file  a  motion  for  amendment  of  the  charge  –  the  prosecutor  
may  tender  a  written  copy  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  court  and  if  granted  
by   the   court   it   is   attached   and   becomes   the   charge.   This   is   more   advantageous   in  
that   it   gives   the   other   party   notice   of   the   amendment   and,   thus,   time   to   scrutinise  
the   amended   charge   as   opposed   to   an   amendment   that   is   stated   orally   in   court  
without  prior  notice  of  the  other  side,  and  this  can  be  objected  to  –  Section  155(3)  
ACJL.  
The  court  at  his  own  will  may  also  amend  a  defective  charge  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings  
Attah  v.  The  State  (1993)  7  NWLR  (Pt.  305)  257  at  287;  Duru  v.  C.O.P  (supra).  It  should  
however   be   noted   that   an   amendment   has   a   retrospective   effect.   Under   Section  164(4)  of  
CPL,   the   amendment   to   a   charge   relates   back   to   the   date   of   filing   of   the   document  
containing  the  charge  –  Attah  v.  The  State  (supra).  

PROCEDURE  AFTER  AMENDMENT  OF  CHARGES  

The  procedure  to  be  complied  with  by  the  trial  courts  after  a  charge  has  been  amended  are  
as  follows:  
1. Endorsement   of   amendment   note   –   The  order  for  amendment  shall  be  endorsed  
on   the   charge.   The   court   must   endorse   a   note   of   the   order   of   amendment   on   the  
amended   charge,   which   must   be   substituted   for   the   original   charge.   It   must   be  
deemed  to  be  the  original  charge  –  Sections  164(4)  CPL;  and  156(4)  ACJL.  In  C.O.P   v.  
Alao   (1959)   WRNLR   39,   a   charge   was   amended   during   the   trial.   The   order   of  
amendment   was   not   endorsed   on   the   amended   charge.   On   appeal   against  
conviction,   it   was   observed   that   it   is   essential   to   endorse   an   amended   charge,  
because  an  omission  to  do  so  may  vitiate  the  proceedings.  

2. Reading  and  explanation  of  an  amended  charge  –  The   new   charge   must   be   read  
and  explained  to  the  accused  person  and  a  fresh  plea  taken  from  the  accused  to  the  
amended   charge–   Sections   163   and   164   CPL;   208(2)   CPCL;   and   156(1)   ACJL.   In  
Youngman   v.   C.O.P   (1949)   4   FSC   283,   the   accused   person   was   charged   with  
indictable   offences   and   was   convicted.   On   appeal   against   his   conviction,   the   accused  
contended  that,  inter  alia,  that  failure  by  the  court  to  obtain  a  fresh  plea  and  consent  
rendered   his   trial   and   conviction   null   and   void.   The   Supreme   Court   allowed   the  
appeal   on   the   ground   that   failure   to   obtain   a   fresh   plea   and   consent   from   the  
appellant,  after  the  charge  was  amended,  was  contrary  to  sections  163  and  164(1)  
of  the  CPL.  
3. Taking   of   fresh   plea   by   the   accused.   -­     The  requirement  of  a  fresh  plea  to  a  charge  
after  an  amendment  is  also  compulsory  in  criminal  trials  and  tribunals.  In  Okosun  
v.  The  State  (1979)  3  &  4  SC  36,  the  accused  was  tried  by  a  Robbery  and  Firearms  
Tribunal  for  the  offence  of  robbery.  During  the  trial,  the  charge  was  amended.  The  
original  charge  stated  that  the  accused  robbed  the  complainant  of  a  tape  recorder.  
The   charge   was   amended   and   ‘record   player’   was   substituted   for   ‘tape   recorder’.  
The   accused   was   convicted.   On   appeal   against   conviction,   it   was   submitted   that  
sections  163  and  164  of  the  CPL  applied  to  tribunals,  and  the  tribunal  had  failed  to  
 comply   with   these   statutory   provisions.   The   Supreme   Court   accepted   counsel’s  
contention  and  held  that  failure  to  obtain  a  fresh  plea  after  the  amendment  was  fatal  
to   the   trial   and   that   the   trial   was   null   and   void   and   of   no   effect.   The   appeal   was  
allowed.  
However,   the   requirement   of   a   fresh   consent   to   an   amended   charge   of   indictable  
offences  is  only  applicable  in  Magistrates’  Courts  trials  in  Southern  Nigeria  –  Section  
304  CPL;  s156  ACJL  Also,  in  the  South,  a  charge  sheet  may  contain  an  indictable  or  
non-­‐indictable  offence  in  the  same  charge  sheet.  If  the  charge  of  indictable  offence  is  
amended,  a  fresh  plea  and  consent  must  be  obtained  –  Jones   v.   C.O.P   (1960)   15  FSC  
38,  the  Court  allowed  the  appeal  and  held  that  the  Magistrates’  Courts  ought  to  have  
obtained   a   fresh   consent   on   the   amended   indictable   offence.   Where   it   is   non-­‐
indictable  offence,  it  requires  no  consent.  Therefore,  if  the  charge  of  non-­‐indictable  
offence   is   amended,   the   court   can   only   obtain   a   fresh   plea   but   not   a   fresh   consent  
because  the  charge  amended  is  not  one  requiring  consent  –  Edun  v.  C.O.P  (1966)  1  
All   NLR   17,   the   accused   was   charge   for   robbery   and   taking   ballot   boxes   without  
authority.   The   latter   offence   being   one   triable   in   the   Magistrates’   Courts   without  
consent.   The   accused   was   convicted.   On   appeal,   the   Supreme   Court   dismissed   the  
appeal   and   held   that   the   expression   ‘charge’   in   section   304   of   CPL,   does   not   mean  
the   whole   document   upon   which   the   accused   is   arraigned,   but   a   statement   of   an  
offence.   Therefore,   since   the   statement   of   offence   or   count   amended   is   one   triable  
summarily  without  consent,  it  was  unnecessarily  to  obtain  a  fresh  consent  after  the  
amendment.  
4. Consent   of   the   accused   –   The  court  must  ask  the  accused  whether  he  is  ready  to  be  
tried   on   the   amended   charge   –   Section   164(1)   of   CPL.  The   CPCL   does   not   have   such  
provision   (in   situations   where   accused   had   consented   to   be   trialled   by   the  
magistrate  court)  
5. Adjournment   –   The   accused   and   the   prosecutor   must   be   given   the   option   of   an  
adjournment  if,  in  opinion  of  the  court,  proceeding  immediately  with  the  trial  after  
the   amendment   would   prejudice   either   of   them.   That   is,   either   the   accused   or   the  
prosecutor   shall   be   given   adjournment   or   a   new   trial   order   if   proceeding  
immediately   with   the   trial   shall   prejudice   the   accused   in   his   defence   or   the  
prosecutor   in   the   conduct   of   his   case   –   Sections   164   (2)   &   (3)  CPL;   209   &   210   CPCL;  
and   156(2)   &   (3)   ACJL.   Adjournments   are   usually   granted   by   the   court   in   its  
discretion   depending   on   the   circumstance   of   the   case,   and   entitlement   to   a  
reasonable  time  and  facilities  to  prepare  for  a  defence  is  a  right  of  an  accused  person  
–  Section  36(6)(b)  of  the  1999  Constitution;  Gokpa  v.  Inspector-­General  of  Police  
(1961)  1  All  NLR  432.  

6. Call  or  recall  of  witness  –  The   court   must   permit   the   accused   and   the   prosecution  
to  recall  any  witness  who  had  testified,  or  call  new  witnesses,  and  examine  or  cross-­‐
examine   them   with   reference   to   the   amendment   –  Sections   165   CPL;   211   CPCL;   and  
157   ACJL.   That   is,   the   prosecutor   and   the   accused   shall   be   allowed   to   recall   or   re-­‐
summon  any  witness  who  may  have  been  examined  and  examine  or  cross-­‐examine  
such   with   reference   to   such   amendment.   It   is   the   duty   of   the   court   to   inform   the  
 accused   who   is   not   represented   of   his   counsel   of   this   right   but   where   the   accused   is  
represented,  the  court  has  no  duty  to  inform  his  counsel  because  it  is  presumed  that  
the  counsel  know  these  procedures.  In  Shoaga  v.  R  14  WACA  22  Verity  CJ  observed  
thus:  
“Under   section   165,   it   is   clearly   laid   down   that   where   an   alteration   or  
an   addition   has   been   made   in   the   charge,   the   accused   person   must   be  
allowed  to  recall  and  cross-­examine  any  witness  who  has  already  given  
evidence   if   he   so   desires.   That   is   a   right   which   can   not   be   taken   away  
from   him   and   of   which   he   must   be   informed   if   he   is   not   legally  
represented.”  

The   court   cannot   refuse   an   application   to   call   or   recall   witnesses   after   a   charge   has   been  
amended   –   Adisa   v.   Attorney-­General   of   Western   Nigeria   (1965)   1   All   NLR   412,   the  
Supreme   Court   held,   inter  alia,  that   the   accused   person   had   a   right   to   recall   witnesses   after  
the  charge  against  him  was  amended.  
 
EFFECT  OF  NON  COMPLIANCE  WITH  POST  AMENDMENT  PROCEDURE  
 
1 Failure  to  endorse  the  amendment  CAN  vitiate  proceedings-­‐  COP  V.ALAO  
2 Failure   to   give   the   parties   room   to   adjourn   will   not   vitiate   trial   EXCEPT   a  
miscarriage  of  justice  has  been  occasioned.  
3 Where   the   court   refuses   an   application   to   call   or   recall   witnesses   after   the   charge  
has  been  amended,  the  conviction  may  be  set  aside  and  a  retrial  ordered:  ADISA  V.  A    G  
WESTERN  NIGERIA  
4 Failure   to   call   on   the   accused   to   take   a   fresh   plea   would   render   the   proceedings   a  
complete  nullity-­‐  UKET  v  FRN  
THE  EFFECT  OF  A  CONVICTION  ON  A  DEFECTIVE  CHARGE  –  
S.166  CPL  ;  
S.206  CPCL;  
S.158  ACJL  
It  may  or  may  not  nullify  a  trial  and  conviction  depending  on  if  it  occasioned  a  miscarriage  
of  justice.    
 
The  trial  will  be  set  aside  if:    
a. The  defect  leading  to  the  conviction  is  fundamental    
b. It  prejudiced  the  accused  in  the  conduct  of  his  defence,  and    
c. It  brought  about  the  conviction  of  the  accused  
HOW  TO  MAKE  ORAL  APPLICATION  FOR  AMENDMENT  BEFORE  PLEA  
On   the   day   of   arraignment   (mention),   the   Prosecutor   would   simply   inform   the   Court   as  
follows:  
My  Lord,  there  are  two  charges  filed  in  this  case.    One  is  dated  ….  and  the  other  dated  …  we  
apply  to  withdraw  the  one  dated  …  
If   the   court   approves,   the   amended   charge   shall   become   the   new   charge   upon   which   the  
trial  shall  proceed.  
   
a)  MAGISTRATE  COURT  IN  THE  NORTH  
THE  THREE  PARAGRAPH  CHARGE  COMPRISING  OF  AN  INTRODUCTORY  PARAGRAPH,  
THE  CHARGE  AND  THE  DIRECTIONAL  PARAGRAPH:  (APPENDIX  5-­curriculum)  
 
IN  THE  MAGISTRATE  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  ABUJA    
IN  THE  ABUJA  MAGISTERIAL  DISTRICT    
HOLDEN  AT  WUSE    
CASE  NO:……….  
BETWWEN:    
COMMISSIONER  OF  POLICE    ……………………  COMPLAINANT    
    VS.    
1.UMARU  OBI    
2.  EHI  SHEHU     …………………..  ACCUSED  PERSONS    
 
 
 
I,  Gabrielle  Ndu,  Chief  Magistrate  Grade  I  hereby  charge  UMARU  OBI  and  EHI  
SHEHU  with  the  following  offences:    
 
CHARGE  ONE:  
That  you  Umaru  Obi  and  Ehi  Shehu  on  the  2  day  of  November  2000  at  the  Julius  
Berger  roundabout  Wuse  Abuja  and  within  the  Magisterial  District  of  this  Court,  drove  
in  a  convoy  manner  recklessly  and  menacingly  through  traffic  with  motorcycles  
numbers  XL  14GWA  and  XD  35KWL  respectively  and  thereby  committed  the  offence  of  
reckless  driving  punishable  under  section  6  of  the  Federal  Highways  Act  1971.    
 
CHARGE  TWO:  
That  you  Umaru  Obi  on  the  2  day  of  November  2000  at  the  Julius  Berger  roundabout  
Wuse  Abuja  and  within  the  Magisterial  District  of  this  Court,  drove  recklessly  which  
caused  the  death  of  one  Miss  Rose  Ogun  at  the  spot  and  thereby  committed  the  offence  
of  causing  death  by  dangerous  driving  punishable  under  section  5  of  the  Federal  
Highways  Act  1971.    
 
I  hereby  direct  that  you  be  tried  by  the  High  Court  of  the  Federal  Capital  Territory  at  
the  Wuse  Judicial  Division  Abuja  for  this  said  offences.    
DATED  THE  …………  DAY  OF  …………………………..  2001.    
……………………………    
Ndu  Gabriella  
Chief  Magistrate  I  
Wuse  Magisterial  District,  Abuja.  
  
b)  Magistrate  Court  in  the  South    

IN  THE  MAGISTRATE  COURT  OF  LAGOS  STATE    

IN  THE  EPE  MAGISTERIAL  DISTRICT    
HOLDEN  AT  EPE    
CHARGE  NO:……….  
BETWWEN:    
COMMISSIONER  OF  POLICE    ……………………  COMPLAINANT    
    VS.    
1.UMARU  OBI    
2.  EHI  SHEHU     …………………..  DEFENDANT      
 
   
 
COUNT  ONE:  
That  you  Umaru  Obi  and  Ehi  Shehu  on  the  2  day  of  November  2000  at  the  Julius  
Berger  roundabout  Epe,  Lagos  and  within  the  Epe  Magisterial  District,  drove  in  a  
convoy  manner  recklessly  and  menacingly  through  traffic  with  motorcycles  numbers  
XL  14GWA  and  XD  35KWL  respectively  and  thereby  committed  the  offence  of  reckless  
driving  punishable  under  section  …  of  the  (statute)    
 
COUNT  TWO:  
That  you  Umaru  Obi  on  the  2  day  of  November  2000  at  the  Julius  Berger  roundabout  
Epe,  Lagos  A  and  within  the  Epe  Magisterial  District,  drove  recklessly  which  caused  
the  death  of  one  Miss  Rose  Ogun  at  the  spot  and  thereby  committed  the  offence  of  
causing  death  by  dangerous  driving  punishable  under  section  …  of  the  (statute)  
 
DATED  THE  …………  DAY  OF  …………………………..  2001.    
……………………………    
Akin  Olawale  Oluwadayisi  Esq  
Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police  
For:  Commissioner  of  Police    
 
c)  STATE  HIGH  COURT  IN  NORTH  
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  BAUCHI  STATE    
IN  THE  BAUCHI  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  BAUCHI    
CASE  NO:……  
BETWEEN:    
THE  STATE                …………………..  COMPLAINANT/  
APPLICANT  VS.    
 1. ABU  TERRO    
2. YISA  KUDU    
3. BASHIR  CHAD    
4. ALIGWAGWA                              
5. KOLO   STRONG                                                          
…….  
6. SULEJA   TEXAS  
………………ACCUSED  PERSONS  
 
CHARGE  ONE:    
Abu  Terro,  Yisa  Kudu,  Bashir  Chad,  Ali  Gwagwa,  Kolo  Strong  and  Suleja  Texas  on  the  
13th  day  of  June  2002  at  No.  2  Hankuri  Drive  Bauchi  metropolis  and  within  the  Judicial  
Division  of  this  Honourable  Court,  severally  beat  up  Yaro  Maiguard  the  security  man  
on   the   premises   and   thereby   committed   the   offence   of   assault   punishable   under  
section  265(a)  of  the  Penal  Code  Law  of  Bauchi  State.          
 
CHARGE  TWO:    
Abu  Terro,  Yisa  Kudu,  Bashir  Chad,  Ali  Gwagwa,  Kolo  Strong  and  Suleja  Texas  on  the  
13th  day  of  June  2002  at  No.  2  Hankuri  Drive  Bauchi  metropolis  and  within  the  Judicial  
Division  of  this  Honuorable  Court,  robbed  one  Alhaji  Baba  of  the  sum  of  N550,000.00  
from   his   safe   and   thereby   committed   the   offence   of   robbery   punishable   under   Section  
301  of  the  Penal  Code  Law  of  Bauchi  State.    
 
CHARGE  THREE:    
Abu  Terro,  Yisa  Kudu,  Bashir  Chad,  Ali  Gwagwa,  Kolo  Strong  and  Suleja  Texas  on  the  
13th  day  of  June  2002  at  about  7.00  pm  in  No.  2  Hankuri  Drive  Bauchi  metropolis  and  
within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Honuorable  Court,  stole  assorted  jewellery  worth  
the  sum  of  N1000,000.00  belonging  to  Mrs  Aisha  Baba  from  her  room  and  thereby  
committed  the  offence  of  robbery  punishable  under  Section  301  of  the  Penal  Code  Law  
of  Bauchi  State.    
 
CHARGE  FOUR:    
Abu  Terror,  Yisa  Kudu,  Bashir  Chad,  Ali  Gwagwa,  Kolo  Strong  and  Suleja  Texas  on  the  
13th  day  of  June  2002  at  about  7.00pm  in  No.  2  Hankuri  Drive  Bauchi  metropolis  and  
within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Honuorable  Court,  caused  the  death  of  Yaro  
Maiguard  by  punching  his  face  and  head  with  knowledge  that  death  will  be  the  
probable  cause  and  thereby  committed  the  offence  of  culpable  homicide  punishable  
with  death  under  section  221  of  the  Penal  Code  Law  of  Bauchi  State.    
 
CHARGE  FIVE:    
Abun  Terror  on  the  13th  day  of  June  2002  at  about  7.00pm  in  No.  2  Hankuri  Drive  
Bauchi  metropolis  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Honuorable  Court,  defamed  
the  modesty  of  one  Aisha  Baba  by  calling  her  ’a  cheap  prostitute’  and  thereby  
 committed  the  offence  of  criminal  defamation  punishable  under  section  400  of  the  
Penal  Code  Law  of  Bauchi  State.          
 
DATED  THIS  ……………………….DAY  OF  ………………….2014  
               
……………………………………..  
NDU  GABRIELLA  
DIRECTOR  OF  PUBLIC  PROSECUTION  
MINISTRY  OF  JUSTICE,  BAUCHI  STATE.    
FOR:  ATTORNEY  GENERAL,BAUCHI  STATE  
 
 
d)  HIGH  COURT  IN  THE  SOUTH  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  OYO  STATE    
IN  THE  IBADAN  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  IBADAN    
CHARGE    NO:……  
 BETWEEN:    
THE  STATE                …………………..  COMPLAINANT  
 VS.    
1.TUNDE  JOSEPH    
  2.  AHMED  BABALOLA        DEFENDANTS    
 
At  the  session  holden  at  the  High  Court  of  Oyo  State  on  the  _____  day  of______2012,  the  Court  
will  be  informed  by  the  Attorney-­‐General  of  Oyo  State  on  of  behalf  the  State  that:    
1.TUNDE  JOSEPH  
2.  AHMED  BABALOLA  
are  charged  with  the  
following  offences:    
COUNT  ONE:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Conspiracy  contrary  to  section  7  of  the  Criminal  Code,  Laws  of  Oyo  State.    
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  21  day  of  August  2014  at  Ahmed  Kwali’s  
office  of  No  20  Marina  Drive  Ibadan  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court  
agreed  to  steal  the  cheque  leaf  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
 
COUNT  TWO:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Conspiracy  punishable  under  section  7  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Oyo  State.    
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
 Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  21  day  of  August  2014  at  Ahmed  Kwali’s  
office  of  No  20  Marina  Drive  Ibadan  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court,  
agreed  to  forge    the  signature  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi  on  the  cheque  leaf  belonging  to    
one  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
 
COUNT  THREE:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Forgery  punishable  under  section  467  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Oyo  State.    
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  23  day  of  August  2014  at  the  Union  Bank  
PLC  branch  of  No.  10  Marina  Drive  Ibadan  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  
Court,  forged  the  signature  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi  on  his  cheque  leaf.    
 
COUNT  FOUR:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Stealing  punishable  under  section  390  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Oyo  State.    
 
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  23  day  of  August  2014  at  the  Union  Bank  
PLC  branch  of  No.  10  Marina  Drive  Ibadan  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  
Court,  received  the  sum  of  N100,  000.00  paid  on  the  cheque  leaf  with  the  forged  
signature  on  an  account  belonging  to  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
DATED  THE  ……………  DAY  OF  …………………2014  
                                                                                                                                                                 
……………………………………  
GABRIELLA  NDU  
SENIOR  STATE  COUNSEL  
MINISTRY  OF  JUSTICE,  OYO  STATE  
FOR:    ATTORNEY-­‐GENERAL  OF  OYO  STATE  
 
 
 
e)  HIGH  COURT  -­  LAGOS  
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  LAGOS  STATE    
IN  THE  LAGOS  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  LAGOS    
CHARGE    NO:……    
BETWEEN:    
THE  STATE  OF  LAGOS  …………………..  COMPLAINANT    
VS.    
1. TUNDE  JOSEPH    
2. AHMED   BABALOLA    
 …………DEFENDANTS      
    
COUNT  ONE:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Conspiracy  contrary  to  section  7  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Lagos  State.    
 
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  21  day  of  August  2014  at  Ahmed  Kwali’s  
office  of  No  20  Marina  Drive  Lagos  Island  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court,  
agreed  to  steal  the  cheque  leaf  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
 
COUNT  TWO:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Conspiracy  contrary  to  section  7  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Lagos  State.    
 
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  21  day  of  August  2014  at  Ahmed  Kwali’s  
office  of  No  20  Marina  Drive  Lagos  Island  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court,  
agreed  to  forge  the  signature  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi  on  the  cheque  leaf  belonging  to  
Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
 
COUNT  THREE:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Forgery  contrary  to  section  467  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Lagos  State.    
 
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  23  day  of  August  2014  at  the  Union  Bank  
PLC  branch  of  No.  10  Marina  Drive  Lagos  Island  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  
Court,  forged  the  signature  of  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi  on  his  cheque  leaf.    
 
COUNT  FOUR:  
STATEMENT  OF  OFFENCE    
Stealing  contrary  to  section  390  of  the  Criminal  Code  Law  of  Lagos  State.    
PARTICULARS  OF  OFFENCE    
Tunde  Joseph  and  Ahmed  Babalola  on  the  23  day  of  August  2014  at  the  Union  Bank  
PLC  branch  of  No.  10  Marina  Drive  Lagos  Island  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  
Court,  received  the  sum  of  N100,000.00  paid  on  th  cheque  leaf  with  the  forged  
signature  on  an  account  belonging  to  Alhaji  Aminu  Keffi.    
DATED  THE  ……………  DAY  OF  …………………2014  
………………………………….  
NDU  GABRIELLA  
PRINCIPAL  STATE  COUNSEL    
FOR:  ATTORNEY-­‐GENERAL/  COMMISIONER  OF  JUSTICE  LAGOS  STATE.  
 
f)  FEDERAL  HIGH  COURT    
IN  THE  FEDERAL  HIGH  COURT  OF  NIGERIA  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  ABUJA  
 
CHARGE  NO:  
BETWEEN:    
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA      ………………  COMPLAINANT      
VS    
  1.ALHAJI  JILO            
  2.  ALHAJI  JAKA         ……………     DEFENDANTS    
 
COUNT  ONE:  
Alhaji  Jilo  and  Alhaji  Jaka  on  the  26  day  of  October  2010  at  No.  10  Kuje  Road  FCT  Abuja  
being  the  farm  of  Alhaji  Jilo  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court,  diverted  the  
distribution   of   petroleum   Motor   Spirit   (PMS”)   belonging   to   the   Nigerian   National  
Petroleum   Corporation   of   ten(10)   tankers   carrying   a   total   of   33,000   litres   of   petrol  
valued   at   N7.6   million   naira   meant   for   transportation   to   Benue,   Kogi   and   Nasarawa  
States  and  thereby  committed  an  offence  of  sabotage  punishable  under  section  2  of  the  
Petroleum  and  Distribution  (Anti-­‐Sabotage)  Act  Cap  353  LFN  2004.    
 
DATED  THIS  ……..  DAY  OF  ……………  …  2014.    
………………………..  
NDU  GABRIELLA  
SENIOR  STATE  COUNSEL  
FEDERAL  MINISTRY  OF  JUSTICE  
FOR:  HON.  ATTORNEY-­  GENERAL  OF  THE  FEDERATION.  
 
 
g)  High  Court  of  the  Federal  Capital  Territory    
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  ABUJA  
 
CASE  NO:  
BETWEEN:    
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA      ………………  COMPLAINANT      
VS    
  1.ALHAJI  JILO            
  2.  ALHAJI  JAKA         ……………    ACCUSED  PERSONS  
 
CHARGE  ONE:  
 Alhaji  Jilo  and  Alhaji  Jaka  on  the  26  day  of  October  2010  at  No.  10  Kuje  Road  FCT  Abuja  
being  the  farm  of  Alhaji  Jilo  and  within  the  Judicial  Division  of  this  Court,  diverted  the  
distribution   of   petroleum   Motor   Spirit   (PMS”)   belonging   to   the   Nigerian   National  
Petroleum   Corporation   of   ten   (10)   tankers   carrying   a   total   of   33,000   litres   of   petrol  
valued   at   N7.6   million   naira   meant   for   transportation   to   Benue,   Kogi   and   Nasarawa  
States  and  thereby  committed  an  offence  of  sabotage  punishable  under  section  2  of  the  
Petroleum  and  Distribution  (Anti-­‐Sabotage)  Act  Cap  353  LFN  2004.    
 
DATED  THIS  ……..  DAY  OF  ……………  …  2014.    
………………………..  
NDU  GABRIELLA  
DIRECTOR  OF  PUBLIC  PROSECUTION  
FOR:  HON.  ATTORNEY-­  GENERAL  OF  THE  FEDERATION.  
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
WEEK  10-­BAIL  PENDING  TRIAL  
MEANING  OF  BAIL    
It  is  the  temporary  release  of  an  accused  (if  charged  to  Court)  or  suspect  (if  in  Police  
custody)  from  prison  or  custody  pending  the  determination  of  the  case  on  the  condition  
that  he  would  attend  Court  for  his  trial.    
It  is  a  constitutional  right.  -­‐S.  35(4),  s35(5)  and  s36(5)  of  the  Constitution  of  FRN  1999(  
as  amended)  on  the  right  to  personal  liberty.      
Section  35(4)  1999  Constitution:  any  person  who  is  arrested  or  detained  in  accordance  
with  the  provisions  of  subsection  (1)(c)  of  this  section  shall  be  brought  before  a  court  of  
law  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  if  he  is  not  tried  within  a  period  of    

(a) two  months  from  the  date  of  his  arrest  or  detention  in  the  case  of  a  person  who  is  in  
custody  or  is  not  entitled  to  bail  
(b) three  months  from  the  date  of  his  arrest  or  detention  in  the  case  of  a  person  who  
has  been  released  on  bail,  he  shall  (without  prejudice  to  any  further  proceedings  
that  may  be  brought  against  him)  be  released  either  unconditionally  or  upon  such  
conditions  as  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  he  appears  for  trial  at  a  later  date    
 

Section  35(5)  1999  Constitution  provides  what  a  reasonable  time  means:  a  reasonable  
time  means  
(a) in  the  case  of  an  arrest  or  detention  in  a  place  where  there  is  a  court  of  
competent  jurisdiction  within  a  radius  of  40km,  a  period  of  one  day;  and  
(b) in  any  other  case,  a  period  of  two  days  or  such  longer  period  as  in  the  
circumstances  may  be  considered  by  the  court  to  be  reasonable    
 
Section  36(5)  1999  Constitution:  every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  
shall  be  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty.  
 
IMPORTANCE  OF  BAIL  
1.  It  allows  an  innocent  person  escape  punishment  before  their  trial.  
2.  It  gives  the  accused  enough  time  to  prepare  for  his  defence  
 
TYPES  OF  BAIL  
Bail  arises  at  three  different  stages  of  the  criminal  justice  process;  
a.   Police  Bail  pending  investigation-­(SUSPECT)  S.  17  &18  CPL;  S.17  ACJL,  S.  129  CPCL,  
S.  27  Police  Act  
b.   Bail  pending  Trial  (ACCUSED  PERSON)-­‐S.118  CPL;  s.115  ACJL;  S.340&341  CPCL  
c.   Bail  pending  Appeal  (CONVICTED  PERSON):  s283(4)   CPL,   s69(3)   Magistrate   Court  
Law  2009    
 
DURATION/  LIFESPAN  OF  BAIL    
This  depends  on  the  type  of  bail  applied  for  and  granted  as  follows:    
1. Police  bail:  will  lapse  on  the  arraignment  of  an  accused  in  Court    
2. Bail  pending  trial:  the  bail  will  subsist  till  the  end  of  the  trial.    
3. Bail  pending  appeal  will  subsist  till  the  determination  of  the  appeal.      
 
BAIL  BY  THE  COURT  PENDING  TRIAL-­  
S.  118  CPL,    
SS.  340  &  341  CPCL.  
This  may  come  in  two  ways;  
 1. Endorsement   of   court   bail   upon   warrant   of   arrest   by   the   court   or   Justice   of   the  
Peace  EXCEPT  in  capital  offences-­‐Sections  30  CPL,  57  CPCL  
2. Application  for  court  bail  immediately  after  arraignment.  
 
CIRCUMSTANCES  WHEN  COURT  BAIL  MAY  BE  GRANTED  IN  NIGERIA  
This  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  offence  as  follows:    
 
a. SIMPLE  OFFENCES  (LESS  THAN  SIX  MONTHS),  
MISDEMEANOURS(6   MTHS-­3YRS)-­the   Court   shall   grant   bail   EXCEPT   it   sees   good  
reason  not  to.  –  
S.  118(3)  CPL;  
S.115(3)  ACJL    
S.  341(3)  CPCL      
 
NB-­‐S.340(1)   CPCL   has   TWO   EXCEPTIONS-­If   the   bail   will   prejudice   further  
investigation  or  occasion  risk  of  escape.(NORTH  ONLY)  
 
B.FELONY  (THREE  YRS  OR  MORE)it  is  at  the  discretion  of  the  Court.    
S.  115  (2)  ACJL,  
 S.  341(2)CPCL  and  
 S.  118(2)  CPL.    
 
C.  CAPITAL  OFFENCES-­‐Only  a  High  Court  Judge  that  can  grant  bail  on  capital  matters.      
S.  115  (1)  ACJL,  
S.  341(1)  of  the  CPCL,    
S.  118(1)  of  CPL,    
S.  35(7)  (a)  CFRN    
OLADELE  VS.  THE  STATE.  
 
An  applicant  for  bail  on  capital  offences  must  show  SPECIAL  CIRCUMSTANCES-­‐  
ABACHA  V.  STATE.  
 
SPECIAL  CIRCUMSTANCES  FOR  GRANT  OF  BAIL  IN  CAPITAL  OFFENCES  
1. On  grounds  of  severe  ill  health-­‐SULEIMAN  V.STATE  
2. When   the   proof   of   evidence   does   not   link   the   accused   person   with   the   crime-­‐
ABACHA  V.STATE  
3. Where  a  defence  of  ALIBI  has  been  satisfactorily  investigated.  
NB-­‐A  magistrate  Court  can  grant  bail  on  all  other  offences  except  in  respect  to  CAPITAL  
OFFENCES  in  Nigeria-­‐  
S.118  CPL;  
S.12  CPCL&APPENDIX  A  CPCL;  
S.115  ACJL  
STATE  V.OZUZU  
  
MODES  OF  APPLICATION  FOR  BAIL  
1.POLICE   BAIL:   by   writing   a   letter   addressed   to   the   Divisional   Police   Officer   of   the  
Station  or  form  
2.BAIL  PENDING  TRIAL-­This  will  depend  on  the  Court  in  question:    
No  provision  in  the  CPL  or  CPCL  or  ACJL  on  the  procedure  for  applying  for  bail.  
a.  Magistrate  Court  in  the  North/south:  Application  for  bail  can  only  be  made  after  plea    
It  can  be  made  orally  immediately  after  arraignment  (after  a  plea  has  been  made)  or  
where  the  adverse  party  objects  or  is  likely  to  object  to  the  bail  application,  the  court  may  
require  the  Applicant  to  make  a  written  application  or  by  a  summons  (supported  by  an  
affidavit).  

Okeke  and  another  v  COP  (1960)  NRNLR  1:  held  that  an  application  for  bail  pending  trial  
should  be  by  way  of  summons  (Northern  Nigeria).  

Tanko  v  COP:  held  that  application  for  bail  pending  trial  should  be  by  way  of  summons.  
Supreme  CT  clarified  the  difference  btw  summons  and  motion.  Summons  is  used  pending  
trial  because  presumption  of  innocence  still  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the  accused.  So  it  is  for  
the  State  to  explain  why  the  accused  should  remain  in  prison.  We  use  motion  after  
conviction,  presumption  of  innocence  no  longer  applies.  
If  application  is  not  of  the  nature  to  be  taken  orally,  then  accompany  it  with  an  affidavit.  
Must  contain  facts  that  will  allow  the  magistrate/judge  to  exercise  his  discretion  in  your  
client’s  favour  
NB-­‐where   the   magistrate   has   heard   an   oral   application   for   bail   and   the   objections   taken;  
then  the  magistrate  should  rule  on  the  application  and  not  ask  for  a  written  application  –  
Dogo  v.  COP  
 
Exercise   of   this   power   to   grant   bail   depends   on   the   nature   of   the   offence   charged.   In   the  
North,  it  is  possible  to  grant  bail  for  a  capital  offence  (s341(1)  &  344  CPCL).  While  in  the  
South   and   Lagos:   s118(1)   CPL   &   s115(1)   ACJL,   it   is   possible   but   restricted   to   High   CT  
judges.  
Felonies   other   than   capital   offences:   both   the   magistrates   and   High   CTs   may   grant   bail:  
s341(2)  CPCL,  118(2)  CPL  &  115(2)  ACJR&R  Law  
Misdemeanour   or   other   simple   offences:   both   magistrates   and   high   CTs   may   grant   bail  
s340(1)  CPCL,  s118(3)  CPL,  s115  ACJR&R  Law.  
(Section   322(1)   CPCL,   225(1)(a)   CPL   and   s219(1)(a)   Administration   of   Criminal   Justice    
(Repeal   &   Re-­‐enactment)   Law   2011).   (Check   this   out   as   to   when   application   for   bail   can   be  
made  even  where  plea  is  not  taken  e.g.  in  cases  of  insanity  e.g.  s225(1)(a)  CPL  states  that  
Whenever  an  accused  person  is  found  to  be  of  unsound  mind  and  incapable  of  making  his  
defence,   the   court,   the   offence   charged   is   bailable   by   the   court,   may,   in   its   discretion,  
release   him   on   sufficient   security   being   given   that   he   shall   be   properly   taken   care   of   and  
shall   be   prevented   from   doing   injury   to   himself   or   to   any   other   person,   and   for   his  
appearance   when   required   before   the   court   or   such   officer   as   the   court   appoints   in   that  
behalf.).  
 
High  Courts    
The  various  laws  did  not  provide  for  the  procedure  for  bail  application  in  the  High  Court:  
s363  CPL  (since  no  stated  procedure,  the  procedure  in  High  CT  of  England  is  applicable  i.e.  
by  summons);  s262  ACJR&R  Law  (to  do  substantial  justice  –  the  same  procedure  under  the  
CPL  is  adopted),  s35  High  Court  law  of  Northern  Nigeria  (prohibited  the  adoption  of  the  
procedure  under  CPL  to  refer  to  the  High  CT  of  England  so  substantial  justice  is  to  be  done  
–  so  if  the  application  is  by  motion  or  summons,  the  CT  is  empowered  to  listen  to  the  relief  
sought).  
b.  High  Courts  in  the  South  it  is  by  a  summons  supported  with  an  affidavit  and  a  written  
address.  S.  363  of  the  CPL,  SIMIDELE  VS.  COP;  English  Rules  of  the  Supreme  Court  1949  
 
c.  High  courts  in  lagos-­S.262  ACJL-­Summons  or  motion  
 
d.  High  Courts  in  the  North,  it  is  by  summons  or  Motion  on  Notice  but  usually  by  motion  
on  notice    
 
e.  Refusal   of   bail   at   magistrate   courts   in   the   South-­‐apply  to  the  High  CT  by  SUMMONS  
supported  by  affidavit-­‐S.363,  SIMIDELE  V.  COP  (1966)  
 
f.  Refusal  of  bail  at  magistrate  courts  in  the  North-­‐Summons  or  motion-­(summons  is  
usually  preferred)-­‐ACHADU  V.STATE;  TANKO  V.STATE  
 
NOTE-­(EXAM)-­Application  for  bail  at  the  High  Court  can  be  made  orally  and  subject  to  
discretion  of  the  court,  however  it  is  desirable  that  it  is  made  by  Motion  on  Notice  
supported  with  an  affidavit  and  a  written  address.  -­‐ABIOLA  VS.  FRN    
 
APPLICATION   FOR   BAIL   TO   THE   HIGH   COURT   AFTER   REFUSAL   AT   THE   MAGISTRATE  
COURT-­  
The  magistrate  shall  inform  the  accused  of  that  right  to  apply  to  the  High  CT  after  refusal.  
Certified  true  copies  of  the  proceedings  shall  be  lodged  at  the  High  CT  
This   is   done   where   an   application   for   bail   is   made   to   the   magistrate   court   and   it   fails   to  
consider;  refuses  or  neglects  to  grant  bail.  
S.123  CPL;  S.119  ACJL;  S.  342  of  the  CPCL;  DOGO  VS.  COP.    
NB:  Dogo  v  COP:  bail  cannot  be  refused  as  a  punishment    
CONDITION   PRECEDENT-­an   application   for   bail   must   have   been   made   first   at   the  
magistrate  court-­‐ABACHA  V.  STATE  
EXCEPTION-­   cases   of   extreme   urgency-­‐   Offiong   v.   Police-­(no   urgency)-­   APPLICATION  
REJECTED  
 
PROCEDURE-­summons  or  motion  (north)  and  Summons(south).  
The  Summons  for  bail  will  be  supported  with:    
1. An  affidavit    
2. Certified  true  copy  of  the  Charge  Sheet    
3. Certified  true  copy  of  the  record  of  proceedings    
4. Certified  true  copy  of  the  Order  of  the  Magistrate  refusing  bail    
5. Written  address    
NB-­(VIP)-­  Where  two  or  more  co-­accused  apply  for  bail  engaging  one  Counsel,  they  
must  do  it  separately  as  it  is  personal.  Separate  affidavits  and  written  addresses  
should  be  filed.      
 
PROPER  STEP  TO  TAKE  AFTER  REFUSAL  OF  BAIL  BY  A  HIGH  COURT  (EXAMS)  
Where  bail  is  refused  by  a  High  Court  Judge,  a  similar  application  cannot  be  made  to  
another  High  Court  Judge  as  this  will  amount  to  the  Judge  sitting  on  appeal  over  the  
decision  of  a  Court  of  co-­‐ordinate  jurisdiction.    
The  proper  thing  to  do  is  to  appeal  against  the  order  of  refusal  to  the  Court  of  appeal-­  
THE  STATE  VS.  UWAH  (1976)  (contrast  this  with  CONSENT/LEAVE  TO  FILE  CHARGE  
 
DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  MOTION  ON  NOTICE  &  SUMMONS  FOR  BAIL  
1. The   application   for   bail   pending   trial   is   by   summons   which   is   directed   to   the   state   to  
show  cause  why  the  accused  should  be  granted  bail  (presumption  of  innocence)  while  
application   for   bail   by   motion   instead,   prays   the   court   to   allow   the   accused   to   be   -­‐-­‐
released  on  bail.  
2. Application  for  bail  through  summons  is  usually  made  to  the  Judge  in  chambers  while  
application  for  bail  by  motion  is  made  to  the  court.-­‐STATE  V.  UWAH  
3. The   only   difference   between   the   contents   of   summons   and   the   content   of   a   motion   is   in  
the  commencement  phrase    
Summons  ==#  “LET  ALL  PARTIES  …”  
Motion==#  “TAKE  NOTICE  …”  
 
EFFECT  OF  NON-­COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  PROCEDURE  FOR  BAIL  APPLICATION    
1.The  Court  will  not  strike  out  the  application  if  commenced  by  a  Motion  on  Notice  instead  
of  it  to  be  by  Summons.    
This  is  to  do  substantial  justice  rather  than  allowing  technicalities  of  the  Law  to  delay  
justice.  OLUGBUSI  VS.  COP  
If  a  person  has  a  right,  it  does  not  matter  how  he  enforces  it.  -­‐FALOBI  VS.  FALOBI  and  
BELLO  VS.  A.G  OYO  STATE.    
 
CONDITIONS  FOR  GRANTING  BAIL  APPLICATIONS  IN  THE  NORTH  
The  CPCL  prescribes  some  conditions  for  bail  viz  
a.   Whether   there   are   reasonable   grounds   for   believing   that   a   person   accused   has  
committed  the  offence  S.  341(3).  
b.   That  by  reason  of  granting  bail,  the  proper  investigation  of  the  offence  would  not  be  
prejudiced;  and  
c.   That  no  serious  risk  of  the  accused  escaping  from  justice  would  be  occasioned;  and  
d.   That   no   ground   exist   for   believing   that   the   accused,   if   released   would   commit   an  
offence  –  S.  341(2)  
NB   ==#The   first   condition   is   independent,   while   the   last   three   conditions   are  
cumulative.  
GENERAL  FACTORS  FOR  THE  GRANT  OR  REFUSAL  OF  BAIL    
No  laid  down  rules  in  the  CPL/ACJR&R/CFRN.  Only  the  CPCL  made  provisions  as  a  guide:  
s341(2)  CPCL  and  note  s341(3)  CPCL.  Applicant  is  expected  to  generate  his  factors  to  be  
taken  into  account  –  depending  on  the  case  at  hand  
1. Nature/gravity  of  the  offence  or  severity  of  punishment  for  the  offence:  ANAEKWE  
V.  COP  (1996):  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  and  murder,  the  Magistrate  ordered  that  
the   defendants   remanded   in   prison   custody.   The   High   CT   judge   refused   an  
application  for  bail  on  the  ground  that  the  offence  allegedly  committed  was  ‘murder’  
2. Availability  of  the  accused  to  stand  trial  i.e.  danger  of  absconding    
3. Nature,  character  and  quality  of  available  evidence  against  the  accused-­‐  ABACHA  V.  
STATE   (Strong   indication   of   commission   of   a   serious   offence)   CONTRAST   WITH  
NWOKE  V.  FRN  (weak  proof/trivial  offence)  e.g.  witness  testimonies,  exhibits  filed.  
4. Severity  of  punishment  in  the  event  of  conviction  
5. Likelihood  of  commission  of  another  offence  while  on  bail–R  V.  JAMMAL  
6. Criminal  Records  of  the  accused  if  he  is  a  first  offender  or  not-­‐  EYU  V.  STATE(Good  
character)   and   AJUDUA   V.   FRN(several   pending   cases)   –record   of   previous  
convictions    
7. The  Prevalence  of  the  offence  i.e.  where  a  particular  offence  is  prevalent  in  an  area  
or   at   a   given   time,   the   CT   is   usually   slow   to   grant   bail.   THE   STATE   v   FELIX   and  
AJUDA   VS.   FRN.   NB-­‐NWOKE   V.   FRN-­‐bailaible   offences.   In   Bamaiyi   v   State   (2001):  
the  spate  of  assassinations  in  the  country  especially  in  Lagos  was  a  factor  the  court  
considered  to  deny  the  applicant  bail;  Omodara  v  The  State  
8. Detention   of   the   accused   is   for   his   Protection/safety.-­‐BAMAIYI   VS.   THE   STATE;  
NNOGU  V.  STATE  
9. Interference   with   police   investigation   or   prosecution   -­‐   DANTATA   VS.  
IGP(bribe)BAMAIYI  V.STATE(Influential  person);DAMBABA  V.STATE  
10. Medical   or   health   grounds.   FAWEHINMI   VS.   THE   STATE;   ANI   V.   STATE;   NWUDE  
V.FRN  e.g.  renal  failure.  NB:  it  appears  that  HIV/AIDS  no  longer  counts  as  a  health  
factor  
NB-­  CONDITIONS  
• The  prison  facilities  must  be  insufficient  
• Continued  detention  of  the  accused  will  endanger  life  of  other  detainees.  
• There  must  be  evidence  that  the  accused  person  while  in  detention  has  sought  for  
treatment  from  prison  authorities.  
NB:   If   the   defence   counsel   puts   legal   argument   and   conclusions   and   points   of   law   in   his  
affidavit,   the   prosecution   can   orally   ask   the   CT   to   exclude   these   legal   arguments   as   this  
offends  against  the  Evidence  Act    
 
TERMS  /CONDITIONS/  SECURITY  FOR  BAIL    
NB-­do  not  mix  up  with  factors  for  grant  of  bail  
This  refers  to  the  Conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  accused  in  order  to  secure  the  bail.  Used  
for  securing  attendance  of  the  accused.  Conditions  are  generally  at  the  discretion  of  the  
court  to  impose.  NB:  there  are  no  general  conditions  and  conditions  must  not  be  onerous  
and  excessive:  s349(1)  CPCL;  s120  CPL  &  116(1)  ACJR&R  Law  
 
THE  USUAL  TERMS  OF  BAIL  ARE:    
1. Bail  on  self-­‐recognisance  with  no  surety,  security  or  conditions  needed  –  normally  
in  cases  of  misdemeanour    
2. Execution  of  bail  bond  (undertaking  to  be  present)  for  a  fixed  amount  
NB-­‐forfeiture   of   bond-­‐   he   only   pays   when   he   fails   to   appear-­‐s.132  ACJL.  Under   ACJ,  
there  are  registered  bond  masters  
3. Bail  with  bond  and  surety  for  a  specified  sum.-­‐  
S.  122  CPL  ;  
S.118  ACJL;  
S.345  CPCL;  
S.27  Police  Act  
4. Deposit  of  money  in  lieu  of  bond.  .  
S.120  CPL  ;  
S.  347  of  the  CPCL.;  
ONUIGBO  V.  POLICE  
NB-­‐This  may  be  on  the  application  of  the  accused  or  order  of  court-­  
EYU  V.  STATE;  
S.120  CPL;  
S.116(2)  ACJL  
ADDITIONAL  SECURITY  FOR  GRANTING  TERMS  OF  BAIL  
A  court  may  demand  that  a  surety  must  be  
i.   Resident  within  jurisdiction.  
ii.   Own  landed  property  within  jurisdiction.  
iii.   Deposit  his  title  deeds  to  the  property  with  the  court.  
iv.   Swear  to  an  affidavit  of  means.  
v.   Deposit  his  international  passport  with  the  court.  
CT   may   require   a   surety   of   a   particular   standing/status   in   society   e.g.   Civil   servant   above   a  
particular   grade   in   the   Ministry.   NB:   the   terms   and   conditions   are   not   exhaustive   –  
determined  by  the  particular  circumstances  of  the  case  
s138  ACJ(R&R)  Law:  introduction  of  bail  bondsmen  
s372  ACJ  (R&R)  Law  decides  on  how  the  law  should  be  cited    
 
REVIEW  OF  THE  TERMS  OF  BAIL  
S.   120   CPL   &   344(1)   CPCL&   S.   116(1)   ACJL   provide  that  the  terms  of  bail  shall  be  fixed  
with  regard  to  circumstances  of  each  case  and  shall  not  be  excessive.  
An  accused  person  granted  bail  by  a  magistrate  court  on  onerous  terms  may  apply  to  
the  High  Court  for  a  review  of  the  terms  of  bail.  –    
S.  125  CPL;    
S.  344  CPCL  
Eyu  v.  State(EXCESSIVE  TERMS);  State  v.  Amaefule  (NOT  EXCESSIVE).  
Application  to  review  bail  terms  can  be  made  where  they  are  onerous.  A  surety  may  upon  
application  be  discharged  by  the  court.  
 
OPTIONS  OPEN  TO  A  COURT  WHEN  AN  ACCUSED  PERSON  ON  JUMPS  BAIL  
-­‐Where  a  person  on  police  or  court  bail  fails  or  refuses  to  attend  the  station/court  on  the  
date  fixed  on  the  bail  bond  ,the  court  may:  
a.   revoke  his  bail.  
b.   issue  a  bench  warrant  for  his  arrest.  
c.   order  the  forfeiture  of  the  bail  bond  
d.              order  surety  to  pay  the  said  sum  
 
FORFEITURE  OF  BAIL  BOND  
Upon   forfeiture   of   the   bond,   the   court   may   order   the   surety   to   pay   the   sum   stated   in   the  
bond  into  the  court  registry.  
Before   the   bail   bond   executed   by   the   surety   is   forfeited,   the   surety   must   be   given   a   fair,  
hearing.-­‐  Amadu  Tea  v.  COP;  -­S.  354  (1)(2)  CPCL  
NB-­‐  where  the  surety  cannot  pay/or  fails  to  pay,  he  will  be  thrown  into  prison  till  he  is  able  
to  pay  the  sum.  
NB-­‐  any  person  dissatisfied  with  the  order  of  forfeiture  by  the  court  can  appeal:  S142  CPL  
 
REVOCATION  OF  BAIL  
The  grounds  for  revoking  the  bail  granted  are  as  follows:    
1. If   an   accused   who   was   granted   bail   by   the   Magistrate   Court   is   also   indicted   for   an  
offence  at  the  High  Court.  
S.  132  of  the  CPL  and    
S.  127    ACJL.    
2. If  the  accused  failed  to  appear  for  his  trial  with  no  reason    
3. The  surety  applies  to  be  discharged.  NB:  CT  will  not  immediately  revoke  bail,  they  
give   the   accused   an   opportunity   to   substitute   the   surety.   Only   when   the   accused  
cannot  procure  a  surety  that  is  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  CT  will  the  CT  revoke  bail.  
 S.  129  ACJL,    
S.  134  CPL  and    
S.  351  CPCL.    
4. The  accused  granted  bail  is  about  to  leave  Nigeria  and  an  information  is  given  to  the    
Court-­‐S.  130  of  CPL  
 5. If  the  grant  was  based  on  fraud.    
 
WHO  QUALIFIES  TO  BE  A  SURETY  
a. A  person  of  known  address  
b. A  person  with  known  means  of  income  
c. A  person  of  good  character  
d. A  person  acceptable  to  the  court.  
 
ELIGIBILITY  OF  WOMEN  TO  STAND  SURETY  (EXAM  AREA)(LAGOS)  
There   is   no   law   that   stops   a   woman   from   standing   surety   in   any   case.     Such   discrimination  
is  unconstitutional  (S.42  1999  Constitution).  
NB-­‐S.   118(3)   ACJL   2011   provides   that   no   person   shall   be   denied   or   prevented   or  
restricted  from  entering  into  any  recognisance  or  standing  as  surety  on  the  ground  that  the  
person  is  a  woman.  
APPLICATION  FOR  DISCHARGE  BY  A  SURETY  
A  surety  may  apply  to  be  discharged  from  his  surety-­‐ship  or  surrender  the  accused  to  the  
court  before  the  date  assigned:  Onyebuchi  v.  FRN  
 
NB-­‐Where  this  happens,  the  accused   shall   be   detained  until  he  gets  another  surety,  else  
he  would  remain  in  detention  until  the  case  is  determined.-­  
S.  134  CPL,    
S.  351  CPCL,    
S.  129  ACJL  
 
HOW   TO   MOVE   AN   APPLICATION   FOR   BAIL-­IRPAAC/MOWAC(P.587;179-­182-­
ONIEKORO)  
1. R(Rule/section)-­   the   motion   is   brought   pursuant   to   ______and   under   the   inherent  
jurisdiction  of  this  court  
2. My  lord,  we  seek  the  following  reliefs  
3. An   order   of   the   court   admitting   the   1st   accused   person/applicant   to   bail  
pending  the  determination  of  his  trial  
4. A-­my   lord,   our   motion   is   supported   by   a   10   paragraph   affidavit   sworn   to   by  
_____________  
                We   rely   on   all   the   paragraphs   of   the   affidavit   particularly   paragraphs   4-­9.  
Accompanying  the  affidavit  are  ___  exhibits  marked___.  
5. A-­  we  have  also  filed  a  written  address  in  support  of  our  application.  We  wish  
to  adopt  same  
6. My   lord   it   is   trite   law   that   for   an   applicant   to   be   granted   bail,   he   must   _-­‐-­‐the  
applicant  has  satisfied  these  conditions  
7. C-­‐We   humbly   pray   this   honourable   court   to   grant   bail   to   the   accused   on   liberal  
terms  
8. May  it  please  the  court/  we  are  grateful,  my  lord.  
Note-­‐  when  to  align  your  depositions  in  the  affidavit  for  bail  with  the  factors  for  grant  of  
bail  (2013  pq)  
Note-­‐  the  hospital  card  can  be  attached  as  an  exhibit  
 
SCENARIO  FOR  FURTHER  PRACTICE  
Dr   Chidi   Wanpam   is   a   resident   medical   doctor   with   Jos   university   teaching   hospital   and  
resides   in   the   Rayfield   area   of   the   city.   On   the   15th   of   june   2013   while   he   was   on   special  
duty   at   the   teaching   hospital,   two   men   Audu   Mekoi   and   Benbon   Forum   broke   into   his  
apartment  and  carted  away  with  his  property.  Following  a  tip  off,  they  were  arrested  by  the  
police   at   the   old   airport   junction,   Jos   and   taken   to   the   state   police   command   where   they  
were  detained.  The  police  have  refused  to  grant  them  bail  after  one  month  of  detention  on  
the   ground   that   investigations   are   still   on.   Audu   Mekoi   is   an   outpatient   at   the   plateau  
specialist   hospital   where   he   is   receiving   treatment   for   diabetes   while   his   friend   suffers  
from   high   blood   pressure.   Draft   an   application   for   bail   and   supporting   affidavit   of   5  
paragraphs  for  each  accused  person.    
 
GUIDELINES  
Write   the   traditional   first   two   paragraphs,   Third-­‐   details   of   arrest   and   detention   and   the  
reasons   in   the   4thparagraph   (here   state   reasons   in   (a,b,c)   including   ill   health   details   and  
conclude  with  the  last  traditional  paragraph.  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  ABUJA  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  ABUJA  
CASE  NO:…………….  
 
BETWEEN:    
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT    
AND  
1.IKPO……………………ACCUSED  PERSONS/RESPONDENT  
2.BURAGO…………………  ACCUSED  PERSON/APPLICANT    
 
          SUMMONS    
BROUGHT  PURSUANT  TO  SECTIONS  35(4),  S.36(5)  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  
FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA  1999  (AS  AMENDED),  SECTION  341(2)  and  (3)  OF  
THE  CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  CODE  ACT  AND  UNDER  THE  INHERENT  JURISDICTION  OF  
THIS  HONOURABLE  COURT  
 
LET  ALL  PARTIES  attend  at  this  Honourable  court  on  the  …….day  of  …….  2015  at  the  Hour  
of  9  O’clock  in  the  forenoon  or  so  soon  thereafter  on  the  hearing  of  an  application  for  bail  
by  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  Accused  person/  Applicant  for:  
1.AN  ORDER  admitting  the  Applicant  to  bail  pending  the  determination  of  the  trial  at  the  
Magistrate  Court.    
2.AND  FOR  SUCH  ORDERS  OR  FURTHER  ORDERS  as  this  Court  may  deem  fit  to  make  in  the  
circumstances.    
DATED  THIS  ………  DAY  OF………………………….2015.    

This  Summons  was  taken  out  by:  

 Emokiniovo  Dafe-­‐Akpedeye  (Applicant’s  counsel)  
No.  15  Law  School  Close,  Bwari,  Abuja,    
Legal  Practitioner  for  the  applicants.  
FOR  SERVICE  ON:    
The  Hon.  Attorney-­‐General  of  the  Federation  
 Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  Abuja.    
 
NB:  If  Capital  offence,  cite  section  35(4)  and  35(7)(a)  1999  Constitution.  Also  see  115-­‐119  
Evidence  Act    
 
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  ABUJA  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  ABUJA  
CASE  NO:…………….  
 BETWEEN:    
FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA                            ………..……..COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT    
AND  
1.IKPO  
2.BURAGO              …………………  ACCUSED  PERSONS/APPLICANTS    
        MOTION  ON  NOTICE    
BROUGHT  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  35(4)  ,S.36(5)OF  THE  1999  CONSTITUTION  OF  
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA  (AS  AMENDED),  SECTION  341(2)  &  (3)  OF  THE  
CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  CODE  ACT  AND  UNDER  THE  INHERENT  JURISDICTION  OF  
THIS  HONOURABLE  COURT.  
TAKE  NOTICE  that  this  Honourable  Court  will  be  moved  on  the  …….day  of  …….  2015  
at  the  Hour  of  9  O’clock  in  the  forenoon  or  so  soon  thereafter  as  Counsel  to  the  
Accused  persons/  Applicants  will  be  heard  praying  this  Court  for:    
1. AN  ORDER  admitting  the  Applicants  to  bail  pending  the  determination  of  the  trial.    
 2. AND  FOR  SUCH  FURTHER  ORDERS  AND  OTHER  ORDERS  as  this  Court  may  deem  fit  
to  make  in  the  circumstances.    

DATED  THIS  ………  DAY  OF  ………………………….2015.  

          ……………………..  
EMOKINIOVO  DAFE-­‐AKPEDEYE  
COUNSEL  TO  THE  ACCUSED/APPLICANTS  
Whose  address  for  service  is:  
Compos  Mentis  Chambers  
No.  15  Binta  Close  Bwari,  Abuja    
 
FOR  SERVICE  ON  :  
The  Attorney-­‐General  of  the  Federation,    
Federal  Ministry  of  Justice,    

Maitama  ,  Abuja,      
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  ABUJA  
CASE  NO:  …………….    
BETWEEN:    
FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA                            ………..……..   COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT  
V.  
1.BURAGO            …………………2ND    ACCUSED  PERSON/APPLICANT  
AFFIDAVIT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  MOTION  (SUMMONS)  FOR  BAIL  OF  THE  
2ND  ACCUSED  

I,  Alhaji  Mohammed,  Male,  Adult,  Muslim,  businessman  and  a  Nigerian  citizen  of  No.  40  
Bwari  Close,  Bwari,  Abuja  do  hereby  make  oath  and  state  as  follows:    
1. I  am  the  elder  brother  of  the  1st  Accused  person/Applicant  and  by  virtue  of  which  I  
am  conversant  with  the  facts  of  this  case.    
2. I   have   the   authority   and   consent   of   the   2nd   Accused/Applicant   to   depose   to   this  
Affidavit.      
3. Certified  true  copy  of  the  first  true  information  report  and  also  certified  copy  of  the  
magistrate  ruling  refusing  bail    
4. On   the   10   day   of   December   2014   the   accused/Applicants   were   arrested   by   the  
police   for   allegedly   stealing   the   sum   of     N20,000.00   from   one   Mrs   Ene   Agbo   about   2  
kilometres  from  the  Law  School  gate,  Bwari,  Abuja.  
 5. The  Accused/Applicants  is  standing  trial  for  the  Charge  of  stealing  which  is  a  felony.  
6. The  2nd  accused/Applicant  is  a  person  of  good  character  having  no  previous  criminal  
record.    
7. The   2nd   Accused/Applicant   was   diagnosed   of   renal   failure   and   Kidney   stones   in  
2010   and   he   is   still   undergoing   medical   check-­‐up   monthly   at   Gwagwalada   Specialist  
Hospital,  a  copy  of  the  Medical  Report  is  hereby  attached  and  marked  as  Exhibit  ‘A’.  
8. The   Prison   service   in   Bwari   is   unable   to   provide   the   medical   services   to   the   2nd  
Accused/Applicant.        
9. I  was  informed  by  the  2nd  Accused/Applicant  on  the  5th  of  January  2015  at  5.00  pm  
at  the  Bwari  Prison  and  I  verily  believe  him  that  he  will  not  
a. jump  bail  if  admitted  to  bail  pending  his  trial  
b. interfere  with  Police  investigation  
c. commit  another  offence  while  on  bail  
10. I  am  ready  to  stand  as  surety  for  his  bail  on  such  terms  imposed  by  the  Court.    
11. I  swear  to  this  affidavit  in  good  faith  believing  its  content  to  be  true  and  correct  in  
accordance  with  the  Oaths  Act.    
 
                ………………………    
                Deponent      
Sworn  to  at  the  High  Court  Registry,  Abuja  
This  …..day  of  ……  2014.    
BEFORE  ME            
………………………………………………………  
      COMMISSIONER  OF  OATHS  

HOW  TO  MOVE  AN  APPLICATION  FOR  BAIL  (Have  to  check  this  out  again)  
My   Lord,   I   am   Emokiniovo   Dafe-­‐Akpedye   appearing   for   the   accused   person.   My   Lord,  
before  this  honourable  Court  is  an  application  for  bail  on  behalf  of  the  accused  persons  
1. The   motion   is   brought   pursuant   to   section   35(4)   and   section   36(5)   of   the   1999  
Constitution  of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria  (as  amended),  section  341(2)  &  (3)  
of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  Act  and  under  the  inherent  jurisdiction  of  this  court  
2. My  lord,  we  seek  the  following  reliefs:  
3. An  order  of  the  court  admitting  the  2nd  accused  person/applicant  to  bail  pending  the  
determination  of  his  trial  
4. A-­‐my  lord,  our  motion  is  supported  by  a  11  paragraph  affidavit  sworn  to  by  Alhaji  
Mohammed  
                We  rely  on  all  the  paragraphs  of  the  affidavit  particularly  paragraphs  4-­‐10.  Accompanying  
the  affidavit  is  an  exhibit  marked  EXHIBIT  A.  
5. We  have  also  filed  a  written  address  in  support  of  our  application.  We  wish  to  adopt  
same  
6. My  lord  it  is  trite  law  that  for  an  applicant  to  be  granted  bail,  certain  factors  must  be  
established  such  as  the  medical  condition  of  the  accused,  previous  convictions  of  the  
accused,  interference  with  the  police  investigation,  the  availability  of  the  accused  for  
trial  among  others.  My  Lord,  these  factors  have  been  judicially  noted  in  cases  such  
 as  Abacha  v  The  State  (state  the  citations),  Bamaiyi  v  State,  Fawehinmi  v  The  State….  
My   Lord,   the   applicant   has   satisfied   these   conditions   by   showing   his   renal   condition  
is  severe  and  requires  adequate  medical  attention  which  cannot  be  provided  by  the  
Bwari   Prison   Service;   that   he   has   no   previous   criminal   conviction,   that   he   will   not  
interfere  with  the  police  investigation  or  jump  bail  and  he  has  provided  Samuel  Ikpo  
as  surety.      
7. We  humbly  pray  this  honourable  court  to  grant  bail  to  the  accused  on  liberal  terms  
8. May  it  please  the  court/  we  are  grateful,  my  lord.  
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  ABUJA  
IN  THE  BWARI  JUDICIAL  DIVISION  
HOLDEN  AT  BWARI  
CASE  NO:  …………….    
BETWEEN:    
FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA                            ………..……..  
  COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT    
V.  
1.IKPO  
2.BURAGO  SHEHU              …………………  ACCUSED  PERSONS/APPLICANT  
COUNTER  AFFIDAVIT  
I,  Kene  Omalicha,  Adult,  female,  Nigerian  Citizen  and  Medical  Doctor  with  the  Nigerian  
Prison  Service,  Minimum  Prison  Abuja  do  make  oath  and  state  as  follows:    
1.    I  am  the  Chief  Medical  Officer  at  the  Nigerian  Prison  Service  Abuja  where  the  1st  
Accused/Applicant  has  been  in  custody  and  by  virtue  of  which  I  am  conversant  with  
the  facts  of  this  case.    
2. I   admit   paragraphs   3   and   4   of   the   Applicant’s   Affidavit   in   support   of   his   bail  
application.    

3. On   the   30th   day   of   December   2014,   the   1st   Accused/Applicant   was   brought   to   our  
clinic  for  check-­‐up  from  custody  following  his  complaints.    

4. I  ran  a  major  test  on  the  1st  accused/Applicant  to  reveal  any  medical  disorder  in  the  
1st  Accused/Applicant,  a  copy  of  the  test  result  is  hereby  attached  and  marked  Exhibit  
‘A1’.    
5. It   is   untrue   that   the   1st   Accused/Applicant   is   suffering   from   either   renal   failure   or  
kidney  stone  disease.    

6. The  result  showed  that  the  1st  Accused/Applicant  is  depressed  from  anxiety.    
 7. The  1st  Accused/Applicant  was  provided  with  relevant  drugs  to  control  the  condition  
and  the  Prison  has  the  medical  capacity  to  handle  his  condition.  
   
8. The   Accused/Applicant   has   again   been   brought   for   a   second   check-­‐up,   the   result  
showed   a   better   emotional   condition,   a   copy   of   the   test   result   dated   the   14   days   of  
March  2014  is  hereby  attached  and  marked  Exhibit  ‘B1’.    

9. The   1st   Accused/Applicant’s   application   for   bail   should   be   refused   in   the   interest   of  
justice.      
10. I   make   this   statement   in   good   faith   believing   its   content   to   be   true   and   correct   and   in  
accordance  with  the  Oaths  Act  2004.    
                  ………………………    
                Deponent      
Sworn  to  at  the  High  Court  Registry,  Abuja.  
This  …..  day  of    __  2014.    
      BEFORE  ME        
   
 
…………………………………………………
…………  
      COMMISSIONER  FOR  OATHS  

WEEK  11  &  12:  SAFEGUARDS  FOR  FAIR  TRIAL  

CONSTUTIONAL  SAFEFUARDS  FOR  FAIR  TRIAL  
 
The  Constitutional  safeguards  are  as  follows:    
1.  THE  RIGHT  TO  BE  INFORMED  OF  THE  CRIME  ALLEGEDLY  COMMITTED.  See  S.  36(6)  
(a)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
The  accused  is  to  be  informed  promptly  during  arrest  or  arraignment  in  the  language  that  
he  understands  of  the  details/  nature  of  the  offence  he  is  charged  with  (e.g.  the  law  under  
which  he  is  charged).  See   S.   3(1)   of   the   ACJL   and   S.   5   of   the   CPL.     He  must  be  informed  in  
the  language  he  understands.  Services  of  an  interpreter  would  be  required  at  no  cost  to  the  
accused.    
This   is   in   addition   to   s35(3)   CFRN   which   states   that   any   person   who   is   arrested   or  
detained   shall   be   informed   in   writing   within   24hours   (and   in   a   language   that   he  
understands)   of   the   facts   and   grounds   for   his   arrest   or   detention.   Note   that   failure   to  
inform   the   accused   of   the   nature   of   the   offence   he   is   charged   with   will   vitiate   the   trial:  
Ogunpe   v   State   held   that   the   language   of   the   CT   is   English.   Therefore   even   with   pidgin  
English,  must  get  an  interpreter.    
Okeke  v  State:  this  provision  contemplates  an  illiterate  who  cannot  speak  and  understand  
English  Language  and  not  to  burden  the  CT  pretending  he  cannot  speak  English  Language.  
If  the  CT  can  show  evidence  that  accused  understands  English,  no  need  for  an  interpreter.    
Nwachukwu   v   State   (1986);   Maja   v   State;   s179(2)   CPL,   s218(2)   CPCL:  Held  that  if  an  
accused   was   properly   arraigned   for   a   higher   offence   but   the   evidence   adduced  
substantiates  a  lesser  offence  he  will  be  convicted  for  a  lesser  offence.  He  will  be  deemed  to  
have   been   informed   of   the   lesser   offence   (an   exception).   Note   the   two   offences   must   be  
closely  related  e.g.  charged  with  aggravated  robbery  but  later  convicted  of  simple  robbery  
as   in   Nwachukwu   case   (later   offence   must   be   subsumed   in   the   higher   offence   i.e.  
ingredients  required  to  prove  the  lower  offence  must  be  found  in  the  ingredients  to  prove  
the  higher  offence  
IMPORTANCE-­‐to  enable  the  accused  prepare  adequately  for  his  defence  
EFFECT-­‐A  breach  of  the  above  provision  will  render  trial  a  nullity-­‐YAHAYA  V.STATE  
Exceptions  to  the  above  are  as  follows:    

a. When  an  accused  is  caught  in  the  act  of  committing  the  offence:   S.   352   of   the   CPL  
and  S.  186  of  the  CPCL      
b. Can  be  convicted  for  a  lesser  offence  flowing  from  the  offence  he  is  actually  charged  
with  and  he  is  deemed  to  have  had  notice  of  it  as  he  had  notice  of  the  greater  offence  
charged  with.  NWACHUKWU  VS  .THE  STATE  and  MAJA  VS  THE  STATE;    
s.179(1)&2  CPL;  S.218  CPCL;  S.171  ACJL  
2.   Right   to   fair   hearing.   See   S.   36(1)&(4)   of   the   1999   Constitution   as   amended;  
Effiong   v   State.   Section   36(4)   provides  for  the  right  to  fair  hearing  otherwise  known  as  
the  principle  of  natural  justice.    
Section   36(1):   In   the   determination   of   his   civil   rights   and   obligations,   including   any  
question   or   determination   by   or   against   any   government   or   authority,   a   person   shall   be  
entitled  to  a  fair  hearing  within  a  reasonable  time  by  a  court  or  other  tribunal  established  
by  law  and  constituted  in  such  manner  as  to  secure  its  independence  and  impartiality.    

Section  36(4):  Whenever  any  person  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence,  he  shall,  unless  
the  charge  is  withdrawn,  be  entitled  to  a  fair  hearing  in  public  within  a  reasonable  time  by  
a  court  or  tribunal:  

Provided  that  -­‐  

(a)  a  court  or  such  a  tribunal  may  exclude  from  its  proceedings  persons  other  than  the  
parties  thereto  or  their  legal  practitioners  in  the  interest  of  defence,  public  safety,  public  
order,  public  morality,  the  welfare  of  persons  who  have  not  attained  the  age  of  eighteen  
years,  the  protection  of  the  private  lives  of  the  parties  or  to  such  extent  as  it  may  consider  
necessary  by  reason  of  special  circumstances  in  which  publicity  would  be  contrary  to  the  
interests  of  justice;  

(b)  if  in  any  proceedings  before  a  court  or  such  a  tribunal,  a  Minister  of  the  Government  of  
the  Federation  or  a  commissioner  of  the  government  of  a  State  satisfies  the  court  or  
tribunal  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  public  interest  for  any  matter  to  be  publicly  disclosed,  
the  court  or  tribunal  shall  make  arrangements  for  evidence  relating  to  that  matter  to  be  
heard  in  private  and  shall  take  such  other  action  as  may  be  necessary  or  expedient  to  
prevent  the  disclosure  of  the  matter.  

This  right  consists  of  two  pillars:    

a)  nemo  judex  in  causa  sua  meaning  that  one  should  not  be  a  Judge  in  his  own  case  –  a  
man  cannot  be  judge  in  his  own  cause  
b)  Audi  alterem  partem  meaning  that  the  other  party  should  be  heard  (hear  both  parties)  

NEMO  JUDEX  IN  CAUSA  SUA:    

• The  maxim  means  that  a  person  shall  not  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause.  This  principle  
demands  that  justice  must  not  only  be  done  but  must  be  seen  to  have  been  done  i.e.  
there  must  be  no  aorta  of  bias.  The  question  here  is  not  whether  the  judge  was  biased  
in  fact.  Rather  it  is  whether  a  detached  bystander  looking  at  what  the  court  or  judge  
has  done  will  have  the  impression  that  the  judge  was  biased    

• The  judge  must  not  only  be  free  from  bias  but  also  from  any  likelihood  of  bias-­‐  

AZOKWU  V.  NWOKANMA;  

 YAGBUGBE  V.  COP:  laid  down  the  test  for  bias  –  bias  is  not  determined  by  the  mind  
of  the  judge  to  show  whether  the  judge  was  in  fact  biased.  Appellate  CT  looks  at  the  
surrounding  person  i.e.  the  impression  that  a  neutral  party  would  have      

• Where   a   person   has   an   interest   in   any   of   the   parties   or   the   subject   matter   or   the  
outcome   of   the   proceedings,   he   should   refrain   from   presiding   over   the   matter.-­‐
GARBA   V.   UNIVERSITY   OF   MAIDUGURI   (1986):   The   students   were   rioting   and  
destroyed  property  and  assaulted  some  people.  The  Chairman  for  the  Panel  of  Inquiry  
was  one  of  the  victims  of  the  students’  action.  The  students  were  found  guilty  by  the  
Panel  and  expelled.  They  went  to  CT  and  issue  of  whether  there  was  fair  hearing  since  
Chairman  was  affected  by  the  act  of  the  students.  The  CT  held  no  fair  hearing  since  he  
had  a  personal  interest  in  the  outcome  of  the  proceedings.    

• Babatunde   v   State   (2014):  the  Supreme  CT  held  that  fair  hearing  is  only  applicable  
in   trial   of   cases   before   a   competent   Ct   of   law   or   panel   or   inquiry   ad   not   pre-­‐trial  
matters  like  police  investigation  as  the  police  don’t  adjudicate  on  the  matter.  

• However,   in   Orugbo   v   Una:   held   that   the   constitutional   provision   has   no   tribal  
insinuation  of  the  composition  of  the  tribunal  i.e.  cannot  say  no  fair  hearing  because  
the  judge  in  the  case  is  from  a  particular  tribe  unless  he  can  prove  that  because  of  the  
judge’s   tribe,   he   is   interested   in   the   subject   matter,   the   appellate   CT   can   hold   that  
there  is  no  fair  hearing      

• The   principle   of   fair   hearing   cuts   across   all   courts   and   tribunals;   thus   must   be  
observed-­‐FALODUN  V.  OGUNSE  

• Justice   must   not   only   be   done   but   must   be   seen   to   be   done.   The   appellate   CT   is   not  
concerned   with   whether   or   not   in   fact   there   was   bias   but   rather   the   surrounding  
circumstances   and   infer   whether   there   was   a   likelihood   of   bias   –   reasonable   man   test  
–   whether   a   reasonable   person/bystander   would   infer   there   was   bias:   Ajibaiye   v  
Ajibaiye  (2007)  

AUDI  ALTERAM  PARTEM  

•  Court  MUST  listen  to  and  consider  the  evidence  of  both  sides  in  a  matter.  -­‐ODESSA  
V.   FEDERAL   REPUBLIC   OF   NIGERIA   the   court   suo   motu   raised   the   issue   of   the  
validity   of   the   charge   against   the   appellant   and   ruled   on   it   without   giving   the  
appellant  the  opportunity  to  respond.  HELD;WRONG  
• The   mere   fact   that   a   trial   was   conducted   in   a   speedy   manner   does   not   necessarily  
affect  the  accused  person’s  right  to  fair  hearing.    He  must  show  the  speedy  trial  has  
adversely  affected  his  case.-­‐OYAKHERE  V.  STATE  
• A  party  who  alleges  that  he  was  denied  fair  hearing  must  prove  specific  act  or  acts  of  
such  denial-­‐EJEKA  V.STATE  
• Denial  of  right  to  counsel  is  a  breach  of  fair  hearing-­‐AKABUEZE  V.STATE  
 • In  the  case  of  Padawa  &  8  ors  v  Jatau:  it  was  held  that  the  principle  of  audi  alterem  
partem   under   the   Constitution   and   the   common   law   entails   not   only   hearing   each  
side   but   that   each   side   must   be   given   ample   opportunity   to   present   or   defend   the  
case  either  personally  or  through  a  legal  representative    
• Section  287  CPL;  Otapo  v  (1987)  5  SCNJ  57  
 
EXCEPTIONS  TO  ABOVE  RULE  ARE  
• Where  an  accused  person  chooses  to  remain  silent  during  the  trial  and  his  defence-­‐
S.287  CPL  
• Where   a   person   refuses/ignores   initiation   of   proceedings   by   a   tribunal-­‐NBA  
V.AKINTOKUN   –   where  a  party  was  availed  the  opportunity  of  presenting  his  case  
or  defending  same  and  he  wilfully  refused  he  cannot  be  heard  to  complain  later  that  
he  was  not  given  fair  hearing    
• Ex  parte  applications  in  criminal  proceedings.  
 
Fair  hearing    
• No   fair   hearing   where   there   is   an   inordinate   delay   of   the   case   –   must   be   concluded  
within   a   reasonable   time.   In   Effiom   v   State   (1995):   Supreme   Ct   stated   4   factors   in  
relation  to  reasonable  time:  (a)  the  length  of  the  delay  in  the  trial,  (b)  the  reason  given  
by  the  prosecutor  for  delay,  (c)  the  responsibility  of  the  accused  asserting  his  rights,  
(d)  the  prejudice  to  which  the  accused  is  exposed.  In  Effiom  case,  the  case  lasted  for  
5yrs   and   he   was   convicted   for   murder   (conviction   upheld   by   Ct   of   Appeal).   He  
contended   at   the   Supreme   CT   that   the   trial   was   too   long.   The   Supreme   CT   held   the  
trial   was   not   delayed   because   all   the   adjournments   granted   were   necessary   to   lead   to  
proper  adjudication  of  the  matter    

• Okeke   v.   State;(the  appellant’s  trial  lasted  about  six  years.    From  the  circumstances  
of  the  case,  six  years  was  not  an  unreasonably  long  period.)  

• Right  to  fair  hearing  also  entails:  Right  to  be  heard,  easy  access  to  CT,  impartiality  of  
the  adjudicating  body,  speedy  trial.  Where  any  of  these  is  lacking,  there  is  absence  of  
fair  hearing:  Effiom  v  State  (1995)  

• The   accused   person   must   show   that   the   unreasonable   delay   has   occasioned   a  
miscarriage   of   justice.   ASAKITIPI   V.   STATE:   (4  year  long  trial  continued  by  judge  
after  transfer)  HELD-­‐unreasonable-­‐  Ozuluonye  &  Ors  v.  The  State;  

 
PUBLICITY  OF  TRIALS.    
S.  36(3)  &  (4)  CFRN  1999  provides  that  criminal  trials  are  to  be  held  in  public,  where  the  
public  can  have  free  access  
S.203  CPL;  
S.225  CPCL;  
S.208  ACJL  and  
EDIBO  V  STATE  (Plea  taken  in  judges  chambers)  
Members  of  the  public  are  to  have  free  access  to  the  CT.  A  Judge  cannot  obtain  evidence  in  a  
matter  in  absence  of  either  party  to  the  case  (prosecution  and  defence).  All  parties  must  be  
given  equal  access  to  the  CT/equal  treatment/equal  opportunity  
Publicity  of  trial  means  trial  in  a  place  where  the  public  has  unimpeded  access.  Trial  in  this  
sense  starts  from  arraignment  –  Edibo  v  State  (2007)  
Exceptions  to  the  above  right  are  (i.e.  where  judge  can  hold  trial  in  camera:  check  the  
section  36(4),  204  CPL,  S6(5)  Children  and  Young  Persons  Law,  S13(1)  Recovery  of  Public  
Property  (Special  Military  Tribunal)  Decree  1984  

i.   In   the   interest   of   defence,   public   safety,   public   order   or   public   morality   e.g.   public  
defence   and   public   safety   is   when   state   secrets/information   will   be   revealed   which  
will  affect  Nigeria’s  defence  or  security.  
ii.  Welfare  of  a  person  who  has  not  attained  the  age  of  18  
ii.   When  a  young  person  is  to  give  evidence  in  the  case  of  an  offence,  which  is  contrary  to  
decency  or  morality.  
iii.   When   it   is   considered   necessary   due   to   special   circumstances   to   protect   the   private  
lives  of  the  parties  to  the  proceedings  Proviso  (a)  to  Section  36(4)  CFRN  
iv.   When  a  Minister  or  a  commissioner  satisfies  the  court  that  it  will  not  be  in  the  public  
interest  for  any  matter  to  be  publicity  disclosed,  the  court  may  hear  the  evidence  in  
relation  to  such  matter  in  private.-­‐  Proviso  (b)  to  section  36  (4)  CRFN:  
Tokunbo  v  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria:  charge  of  treason  held  in  camera  due  to  public  
defence  and  security  (crisis  in  the  Niger  Delta)  
Mandara  v  AGF  –  during  Shagari’s  regime  –  trial  held  in  camera.  Charge  of  treason  saying  
the  person  wanted  to  takeover  the  government.    
v.   The  trial  of  juveniles  are  not  opened  to  the  members  of  the  public-­   S.   6(5)   children  
and  Young  Persons  Law,  Lagos.(under  17);s.204(2)  CPL  
vi.   Where   a   statute   expressly   provides   that   trials   shall   not   be   open   to   members   of   the  
public.  e.g.   S.   13(1)   Recovery   of   Public   Property   Special   Military   Tribunal   Decree  
1984  prohibits  public  trial  of  alleged  offenders.  
 
3.  RIGHT  TO  THE  PRESUMPTION  OF  INNOCENCE.-­  
• An   accused   is   presumed   innocent   until   he   is   proven   guilty-­‐   S.36(5)   of   the   1999  
Constitution  as  amended:  Every  person  charged  before  a  Ct  of  Law  for  any  offence  
shall  be  presumed  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty.  Section  135  Evidence  Act:  must  
prove  a  crime  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Section   139   EA   2011:  places  the  burden  of  
proof  on  the  prosecution    

• The  judge  should  not  say  or  write  anything  pointing  to  suspect’s  guilt-­‐  
 OLAWOYE&   ORS   V.   COP,-­   The   application   for   bail   was   refused   by   both   the  
Magistrates   Court   and   High   Court   on   the   ground   that   the   offence   of   cultism   was  
rampant.  HELD-­‐  WRONG  

• Section   141   -­144   Evidence   Act:   provides  for  prove  by  the  accused  of  facts  within  
his   knowledge   –an   evidential   burden   of   proof   (the   standard   is   on   the   balance   of  
probabilities  and  whoever  asserts  must  prove  so  can  shift  from  side  to  side)  

• Eyu  v  State  (1988)  ,  Okoro  v  State  (1988)     Held  that  the  proof  required  is  beyond  
reasonable  doubt.  Accused  cannot  be  called  upon  to  prove  his  innocence    

• Okoro   v   State   (1988):   7  people  were  trailed  for  murder  and  the  3rd  accused  was  
discharged   after   raising   the   plea   of   no   case   to   answer.   The   others   were   asked   to  
enter   their   defence.   Appellate   CT   held   since   the   crime   was   committed   jointly   and  
one   was   discharged   due   to   no   case   to   answer.   Why   were   the   others   not   discharged?  
The   CT   held   that   the   judge   had   asked   them   to   prove   their   innocence   which   was  
wrong    

• The  defence  of  the  accused  must  be  properly  considered  however  weak  or  fanciful  
or  bereft  with  lies  as  they  may  appear  to  be-­‐AGBITI  v.  NIGERIAN  NAVY  

• Bail  before  trial  should  not  be  denied  as  punishment  

• Any  doubt  raised  in  the  mind  of  the  Court  must  be  resolved  in  the  favour  of  the  
accused.  -­‐TULU  VS.  BAUCHI  N.A  
EXCEPTIONS  TO  THE  ABOVE  ARE;    

I. The  accused  is  to  prove  facts  within  his  special  knowledge  e.g.  the  defence  of  insanity,  
intoxication  etc    -­‐    
Proviso  to  S.  36(5);  
S.  139  (3)  (c)  Evidence  Act  2011  
II. A  convict  appealing  against  his  conviction  is  no  longer  presumed  innocent    
 
4.   RIGHT   TO   ADEQUATE   TIME   AND   FACILITIES   FOR   HIS   DEFENCE.-­   S.   36(6)   (B)   OF  
THE  1999  CONSTITUTION  AS  AMENDED.    
• S36(6)(b):  “Every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  entitled  to  
be  given  adequate  time  and  facilities  for  the  preparation  of  his  defence”  
• The  time  referred  to  here  relates  not  only  to  the  1st  day  to  which  the  case  is  slated  for  
defence  but  includes  other  reasonable  adjournment  that  may  be  sought  by  the  
defence.  Accused  to  provide  reasons  for  adjournment,  as  CT  is  not  bound  to  grant  
incessant  adjournments.  Udo  v  The  State  (1988)  held  that  a  capital  offence,  an  
adjournment  to  secure  the  services  of  a  counsel  or  if  his  counsel  is  absent,  it  should  
 be  granted.  Where  accused  cannot  afford  the  services  of  a  counsel  in  a  capital  case,  
one  must  be  appointed  for  him  because  the  law  states  that  he  should  not  defend  
himself  in  a  capital  offence    
• The  Court  is  to  grant  adjournment  to  the  accused  in  order  to  secure  a  Counsel  or  
witnesses  for  non-­‐capital  offences.  He  cannot  state  that  a  counsel  is  not  mandatory  
• Shenife  v  State:  CT  has  utmost  discretion  to  grant  adjournment  and  will  not  grant  a  
frivolous  one  
• Gokpa  v  IGP  (1961):  case  was  stood  down  but  the  nearest  lawyer  was  23km  away  
and  thus  it  was  held  that  the  time  frame  for  him  to  get  a  lawyer  was  insufficient    
• Yanor  v  State:  the  court  may  not  countenance  unreasonable  request  for  
adjournment    
• The  accused  is  to  be  given  copies  of  the  Charge,  statements  of  the  witnesses  and  
proof  of  evidence  by  the  Prosecution  –  GOKPA  V.IGP  
• Where  a  witness  is  absent  and  an  adjournment  is  sought,  the  accused  must  satisfy  
the  Court  that:  (Yanor  v  State)  
a The  witness  is  material  to  his  case    
b The  accused  has  not  been  guilty  of  negligence  in  procuring  the  witnesses  attendance    
c There  is  reasonable  expectation  that  he  can  procure  the  witness  at  the  next  adjourned  
date  i.e.  he  can  procure  his  attendance  for  a  certain  date.  ORITSE-­YANOR  &  ANOR.  
VS.  THE  STATE.(Several  adjournments)  
d He  has  not  been  granted  adjournments  several  times  to  procure  this  particular  
witness:  Yanor  v  State  
• If   a   suspect   is   in   the   Police   station,   he   is   to   be   allowed   to   see   his   Counsel   who   will  
assist  him  in  preparing  his  defence.    
• Facilities   means   the   accused   must   be   given   the   necessary   documents   to   prepare   for  
his  case  –  e.g.  witness  statements  and  any  other  material  that  will  assist  the  accused  
in  preparing  for  his  defence  
• If   an   accused   is   standing   trial   for   murder   or   any   capital   offence   and   he   is   not  
represented   by   a   Counsel,   the   Court   should   ensure   that   one   is   provided   for   the  
accused:  S.  352  of  the  CPL,  S.  186  of  the  CPCL    
JOSIAH  VS.  THE  STATE:  accused  should  not  defend  himself  in  a  capital  case  
QUERY-­‐since   adjournment   is   not   mandatory,   does   the   accused   in   a   murder   case   have   a  
right  to  complain  if  he  neglects  the  case  after  several  adjournments.    
5.  RIGHT  TO  A  COUNSEL.  -­S.  36(6)  (c)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
• Every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  entitled  to  defend  
himself  in  person  or  by  legal  practitioners  of  his  own  choice.    
• A  party  cannot  be  denied  the  right  to  counsel  of  his  choice  neither  can  a  counsel  be  
imposed  on  him  if  he  chooses  to  defend  himself.  s390  CPCL  and  s28  Area  Court  
Edict  were  declared  as  nullities  in  Uzodinma  v  COP  (1982):  whether  section  28  
Area  Court  Edict  and  s390  CPCL  providing  that  legal  practitioners  cannot  appear  in  
Area  CTs  was  constitutional.  CT  held  this  was  unconstitutional  as  legal  practitioner  
can  appear  in  any  CT  in  Nigeria  
• ECWA  v  Ijesha  (1999):  the  SAN  Privileges  and  Functions  Rule  was  not  
unconstitutional  and  SANs  cannot  appear  in  inferior  CTs.  This  rule  relates  to  an  
honorary  role  and  the  lawyer  who  is  a  SAN  has  the  option  to  refuse  the  title  of  a  SAN  
if  he  wants  to  appear  in  a  lower  CT.  (Note:  Magistrate  CT  Law  of  Lagos  State  2009:  
all  lawyers  can  appear  before  the  Magistrate  CT  notwithstanding  any  other  law)  
• But  note  the  Supreme  Ct’s  observations  in  Awolowo  v  Usman  Sarki    (1966):  held  
that  such  a  counsel  (i.e.  the  one  chosen  by  the  accused)  must  not  be  subject  to  any  
disability.  Awolowo  wanted  a  foreign  counsel  to  defend  him  and  the  counsel  was  
denied  visa  into  Nigeria  and  Awolowo  stated  that  his  constitutional  right  had  been  
violated.  Ct  rejected  this  contention  since  the  counsel  was  subject  to  a  disability    
• In  ALL  capital  offences,  legal  representation  is  mandatory-­‐    
Mandatory  Legal  Representation  in  Capital  Offences  
S.  352  of  the  CPL,    
S.  186  of  the  CPCL,    
S.  263  of  the  ACJL  
JOSIAH  VS.  THE  STATE:  tried  for  robbery  and  murder.  The  appellate  CT  held  not  
being  represented  by  legal  practitioner  was  a  denial  of  his  right  to  counsel.  CT  is  
under  an  obligation  to  provide  one  for  him    
• An  accused  person  unrepresented  by  counsel  in  NON  capital  offences  should  be  
informed  of  his  right  to  legal  representation  
QUALIFICATION/LIMITATION-­‐If  the  accused  person  chooses  a  counsel  who  is  subject  to  
other  limitations  and  such  limitations  prevent  the  counsel  from  defending  him,  he  cannot  
complain  of  being  denied  to  counsel  of  his  choice-­‐  
AWOLOWO  &  ORS  v.  MINISTER  ON  INTERNAL  AFFAIRS  &  ORS    
 
EXCEPTIONS  TO  THE  ABOVE  RIGHT  ARE:    The  Counsel  is  under  a  legal  disability  or  the  
right  is  in  abeyance  e.g.  the  Counsel  is  disqualified  from  practicing  or  has  not  paid  his  
practicing  fees  or  that  the  Counsel  is  from  abroad  who  has  not  fulfilled  the  immigration  
requirements/  conditions  to  be  allowed  to  appear  in  Nigerian  Courts.-­‐  S.  8(1)  of  the  LPA  ;  
AWOLOWO  V.  MIN  .INTERNAL  AFFAIRS&  ORS  
6.  RIGHT  TO  EXAMINE  PROSECUTION’S  WITNESSES  
S.  36(6)  (d)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
• Every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  entitled  to  examine,  in  
person  or  by  his  legal  practitioners,  the  witnesses  called  by  the  prosecution  before  
any  court  or  tribunal  and  obtain  the  attendance  and  carry  out  the  examination  of  
witnesses  to  testify  on  his  behalf  before  the  court  or  tribunal  on  the  same  conditions  
as  those  applying  to  the  witnesses  called  by  the  prosecution    

• Where  the  Court  refused  the  accused  to  cross-­‐examine  or  re-­‐call  witnesses  that  
tendered  a  written  document  in  evidence,  it  is  a  breach  of  this  right.  
• Where  the  CT  gives  the  opportunity  to  examine  and  he  does  not,  he  cannot  later  on  
appeal  state  that  he  was  denied  this  right      
• TULU  VS.  BAUCHI  NATIVE  AUTHORITY  (1965)  (court  asked  questions):  The  
prosecution  called  many  witnesses.  The  CT  did  not  allow  the  accused  to  cross  
examine  any  of  the  prosecution’s  witnesses.  Instead  the  judge  put  several  questions  
to  the  witnesses.  Held  that  this  was  a  gross  violation  of  the  constitutional  right  under  
s36(6)(d)  
• IDRISU  Vs  THE  STATE.  
NB-­‐(EXAMS)-­‐the  court  is  not  allowed  to  call  witnesses,  etc  when  there  is  no  prosecution-­‐
s.189(2)  CPCL  
EXCEPTIONS  TO  THE  ABOVE  ARE:    
a. If  the  accused  or  his  Counsel  asks  irrelevant  questions    
b.Questions  are  asked  to  harass  a  witness.  S.    224-­226  of  the  Evidence  Act  2011.    
 
7.  Right  to  an  interpreter.  -­S.  36(6)  (e)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
• “Every  person  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  entitled  to  without  payment,  
the  assistance  of  an  interpreter  if  he  cannot  understand  the  language  used  at  the  trial  
of  the  offence”  
• If  an  accused  person  does  not  understand  the  language  of  the  Court  (English),  he  is  to  
be  provided  with  an  interpreter  at  no  cost  to  the  accused.  Where  one  is  required  and  
not  provided,  on  appeal  such  proceedings  will  be  quashed.    
• The  interpreter  must  be  competent  in  both  languages.  
AJAYI  VS.  ZARIA  NATIVE  AUTHORITY  (1964):  the  interpreter  was  not  competent  
to  interpret  in  Yoruba.  The  appellate  CT  quashed  the  conviction.  The  provision  of  the  
interpreter  is  at  no  cost  to  the  accused  
Anyanwu   v   State   (2002):   where   an   interpreter   is   required   and   found   to   be  
incompetent,  any  conviction  based  on  it  is  liable  to  be  quashed  (as  this  is  the  same  as  
having  no  interpreter)  
• The  interpreter  must  interpret  whatever  is  said  by  the  complainants,  witnesses  and  
the   court   sentence   by   sentence.   The   interpreter   shall   interpret   whatever   it   is   said  
immediately  it  is  said.  He  should  not  wait  until  everything  is  said  and  just  interprets  
what  he  remembers  -­‐ZARIA  NATIVE  AUTHORITY  V.  BAKARI  
• Where   the   accused   fails   to   inform   the   CT   that   he   does   not   understand   English  
language,   he   cannot   complain   later   that   he   does   not   understand   English   (Udose   v  
State   (2007):  failure  to  provide  an  interpreter  will  be  treated  as  a  mere  irregularity).  
At   the   point   of   arraignment,   the   Registrar   normally   asks   whether   the   accused   speaks  
and  understands  English  Language.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  accused  should  inform  
CT  that  he  cannot  understand  or  speak  English    
• The  court  must  ensure  that  the  interpreter  does  not  have  any  relationship  with  the  
parties  or  any  other  connection  to  the  case  -­R.  V.  OGUCHA  
• -­‐ZARIA  NA  V.  BAKARI  
• Interpreter  must  be  made  available  at  no  cost  to  the  accused    
 
THE  EFFECT  OF  A  FAILURE  TO  PROVIDE  AN  INTERPRETER.    –  
Proceedings  will  be  null  and  void.  The  accused’s  conviction  will  be  quashed  and  a  re-­‐
trial  ordered.    
• The  accused  is  to  inform  the  Court  timeously  that  an  interpreter  is  needed  otherwise  
he  is  deemed  to  have  waived  it.  THE  STATE  v.  GWONTO  
• An   interpreter   in   any   proceedings   before   the   court   or   JP   must   be   sworn   before  
interpreting   while   under   the   CPCL   he   must   be   bound   by   oath   or   affimation-­‐
s.242(1)CPCL  
• Interpreter   cannot   be   used   where   the   accused   person   understands   the   language   of  
the  court-­‐  ONYIA  V.  STATE  
• Where   an   accused   is   represented   by   counsel   at   trial,   and   they   NEVER   raised;   it  
cannot  be  a  ground  for  setting  a  conviction  aside.  
• The  issue  of  denial  of  interpreter  can  only  be  raised  on  appeal  if  it  was  claimed  at  the  
court  of  trial  and  denied.  
LIMITATION-­it  is  available  only  on  request  of  the  accused-­  THE  STATE  V.  GWONTO  

8.   RIGHT   TO   ONLY   ONE   TRIAL   FOR   AN   OFFENCE.-­S.   36(9)   OF   THE   1999  

CONSTITUTION  AS  AMENDED.  Right  against  double  jeopardy:  Nafiu  Rabiu  v  The  State  
(1980).   See   section   181   CPL,   s223   CPCL,   s173   ACJL,   Igbinedion   v   FRN   (2014)   All  
FWLR  (Pt  718)  pg  879,  FRN  v  Igbinedion  (2014)  All  FWLR  (pt  734)  pg  101  
“No  person  who  shows  that  he  has  been  tried  by  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  or  
tribunal  for  a  criminal  offence  and  either  convicted  or  acquitted  shall  again  be  tried  for  that  
offence  or  for  a  criminal  offence  having  the  same  ingredients  as  that  offence  save  upon  the  
order  of  a  superior  court”.    If  an  accused  claims  that  he  has  already  been  tried,  he  can  raise  
either  of  the  following  pleas:    
a. Autre  fois  acquit   (that   he   has   already   been   acquitted   for   the   offence   he   is   standing  
trial  for  
b. Autre  fois  convict  (that   he   has   already   been   convicted   for   the   offence   he   is   stranding  
trial  for).    
NOTE-­‐He   should   raise   an   objection   to   the   charge   BEFORE   PLEA.   It   is   raised   immediately  
after  the  charge  is  read.  State  v  Duke,  IGP  v  Igboroji.  Can  still  raise  the  issue  during  trial  
and  the  CT  (because  this  is  an  issue  of  jurisdiction  of  the  CT)  will  ask  him  to  withdraw  his  
plea.    
EDU  V.COP  (1952):  it  is  not  a  right  that  is  taken  up  for  the  first  time  on  appeal    
This   objection   must   be   raised   before   court   adjourns   to   write   its   judgment.-­‐   THE   STATE  
V.DUSHI  
ESSENCE  –  
To  bar  the  state  from  instituting  criminal  proceedings  against  its  subjects  AD  INFINITUM-­‐
IGP  V.IGBOROJI  
Cases  where  the  appellate  court  will  order  a  re-­‐trial.  In  a  re-­‐trial,  none  of  these  pleas  can  be  
raised.    
THE  CONDITIONS  FOR  RAISING  AND  SUCCEEDING  ON  THE  BAR  PLEAS  

 (All  4  conditions  must  be  satisfied):  s36(9)  of  the  Constitution    

• The  first  trial  must  have  been  on  a  criminal  charge:  R  v  Jinadu  –  police  officer  was  
tried  in  a  Police  Orderly  Room  for  the  use  of  unnecessary  violence  on  persons  in  his  
custody.  He  was  acquitted  but  downgraded  in  rank.  Later,  he  was  brought  up  on  
criminal  charges  of  assault  in  a  Ct  of  law  under  the  Criminal  Code.  Trial  Court  and  Ct  
of  Appeal  rejected  his  plea  of  autre  fois  acquit  because  his  previous  proceedings  was  
disciplinary  under  the  rules  of  the  police  force  and  not  a  competent  court  of  law  

• The  accused  person  has  been  tried  by  a  competent  Court  of  criminal  jurisdiction.  
CHIEF  OF  AIR  STAFF  V.  IYEN;  R  v  Hodge    

UMEZE  V.  STATE  (murder  trial  at  magistrate  court).  Magistrate  Court  has  no  
jurisdiction  to  try  capital  offences    

• The  charge  must  be  for  the  same  offence  known  to  law  or  offence  having  same  
ingredients  with  the  previous  offence.  Should  be  the  same  exact  offence.  Also  an  
offence  of  which  the  accused  person  could  have  been  convicted  of  at  the  first  trial,  
although  he  was  not  charged  with  that  offence:  R  v  Jinadu    

• The  accused  was  either  convicted  or  acquitted  after  the  trial.  Where  case  is  struck  
out  for  want  of  diligent  prosecution,  it  amounts  to  a  discharge.  Termination  by  nolle  
 prosequi  or  discharge  (Inquiry/  before  defence)  under  S.75  CPL  not  applicable.  
Nolle  prosequi  is  not  an  acquittal  but  just  a  discharge.  

NOTE(EXAMS)-­‐Where  no  case  submission  is  rightly  upheld,  it  is  a  discharge  on  merit  and  
therefore  an  acquittal-­‐EXCEPT  in  magistrate  court  in  the  NORTH-­‐S.159(3)  CPCL.  
Note-­‐   Generally,   an   accused   person   who   is   not   found   guilty   of   the   offence   with   which   he  
was  charged  may  be  convicted  of  a  lesser  kindred  offence.-­‐  
 
S.  179  (2)  CPL;    
S.  218  (2)  CPCL-­‐An  accused  person  can  plead  autrefois  acquit  on  the  ground  that  the  court  
of  first  trial  failed  to  convict  him  of  the  lesser  offence  with  which  he  is  now  charged.  
 
However,   the   lesser   offence   must   be   related   to  the  offence  with  which  he  was  earlier  
tried.  
 
NOTE   CAREFULLY-­‐   This   plea   intends   to   prevent   double   trial   and   double   conviction   not  
necessarily  double  punishment-­‐  
S.  170  (2)  Armed  Forces  Act  1993:  a  person  tried  in  a  CT  martial  can  be  tried  again  in  a  
regular  civil  court  but  the  later  court  should  take  cognisance  of  the  penalties  imposed  in  the  
court  martial  (does  not  apply  to  military  criminal  offences)  
 
EXCEPTION  -­‐where  the  accused  will  not  be  considered  to  be  tried  twice  is  an  Order  of  re-­‐
trial  by  a  superior  Court  or  Appeal  Court.    
S.19&23  Court  of  appeal  act;  
S.26  Supreme  Court  ACT  
 
9.  Right  against  trial  and  conviction  on  a  retroactive  legislation  .  
S.  36  (8)  of  the  1999  Constitution  (FRN)  as  amended:  “No  person  shall  be  held  to  be  
guilty  of  a  criminal  offence  on  account  of  any  act  or  omission  that  did  not,  at  the  time  it  took  
place,  constitute  such  an  offence,  and  no  penalty  shall  be  imposed  for  any  criminal  offence  
heavier  than  the  penalty  in  force  at  the  time  the  offence  was  committed”  

It  has  two  aspects  as  follows:    

a. Not  to  be  punished  for  an  act/omission  which  was  not  an  offence  when  committed-­    
FED.  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA  V.  IFEGWU;  BODE  GEORGE  V.FRN  
b. Not   to   be   penalised   with   heavier   punishment   than   that   in   force   at   the   time   the  
offence  was  committed.  80%  of  persons  in  prison  are  awaiting  trial  so  penalty  that  
should  apply  is  the  one  on  the  day  the  person  committed  the  offence  –  
EGUNJOBI  V  FRN  (2002)  FWLR  (Pt  103)  pg  896:  conviction  was  held  to  be  null  and  
void  as  the  Decree  had  a  retrospective  effect  (9th   November   1994)   and   the   act   was  
committed  in  July  1994  
FRN  v  IFEGWU  
IKPASUE  Vs.  BENDEL  STATE  and  
 A.G  FED.  Vs.  CLEMENT  ISONG.  
  
10.   Right   to   be   tried   for   an   offence   known   to   Law.-­S.   36(12)   of   the   1999   Constitution  
as  amended.    
• “Subject  as  otherwise  provided  by  this  Constitution,  a  person  shall  not  be  convicted  of  
a   criminal   offence   unless   that   offence   is   defined   and   the   penalty   therefore   is  
prescribed  in  a  written  law,  and  in  this  subsection,  a  written  law  refers  to  an  Act  of  
the   National   Assembly   or   a   Law   of   a   State,   any   subsidiary   legislation   or   instrument  
under  the  provisions  of  a  law”  
• The   offence   an   accused   is   charged   with   and   its   penalty   must   be   prescribed   by   Law.  
NB-­‐Customary  criminal  Law  is  thus  abolished  in  Nigeria.  -­‐AOKO  VS.  FAGBEMI.  
• NB-­‐   A   WRITTEN   LAW   refers   to   an   Act   of   the   National   Assembly   or   a   law   of   a   State  
House   of   Assembly   and   subsidiary   legislation   or   instrument   under   the   provisions   of   a  
law.  
• An   accused   person,   who   is   charged   upon   a   section   of   a   law   which   only   defines   an  
offence  but  does  not  prescribe  the  penalty  for  the  offence,  has  not  been  charged  with  
an  offence  known  to  law.  
• ATTORNEY   GENERAL   FEDERATION   v.   ISONG,   the   accused   person   was   charged,  
tried  and  convicted  for  offences  under  Ss.  3  &  9  Firearms  Act  of  1966.  None  of  the  said  
section  prescribes  a  penalty  for  the  offences.-­‐OLIEH  v.  FED.  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA.  
• NOTE-­‐ADULTERY  is  a  criminal  offence  only   in   the   North   under  Sections  378  and  388  
Penal  Code  
• Aoko  v  Fagbemi:  Person  alleged  to  have  committed  adultery  in  the  South.  This  is  not  
an  offence  in  the  South  (Criminal  Code)  but  an  offence  in  the  North.    
• Olieh   v   FRN:   there   is   nothing   known   as   falsely   boosting   an   account.   Not   an   offence  
known   to   law.   Also   see   Olademiji   v   State:   Accused   was   charged   for   ‘conspiracy   to  
lynch’.  Therefore  must  use  the  right  terms  in  charging  someone  with  an  offence.  
• Olabode   George   v   FRN   (2014)   All   FWLR   (Pt   718)   pg   879:   charge   was   contract  
splitting.  It  was  held  that  no  offence  known  to  law  as  contract  splitting.  
• This   principle   is   applicable   in   military   tribunals.   See   Asake   v   Nigerian   Army   Council:  
superior   borrowed   money   from   a   subordinate.   Held   that   there   was   no   law   clearly  
stopping   a   superior   officer   from   doing   this   and   therefore   not   a   clear   offence   known  
under  the  Armed  Forces  Act.    
• Note:   A   conviction   under   a   repealed   law   stands   because   when   the   offence   was  
committed,  it  was  an  offence  known  to  law.  Adonike   v   State   (2015)  LPELR  -­‐24281  
(SC)  
10.   RIGHT   AGAINST   TRIAL   FOR   AN   OFFENCE   ALREADY   PARDONED.   -­‐S.   36   (10)   OF  
THE  1999  CONSTITUTION  AS  AMENDED.  
“No  person  who  shows  that  he  has  been  pardoned  for  a  criminal  offence  shall  again  be  tried  
for  that  offence”  
S.211  (1)(b)CPL;  
Once  a  person  has  been  pardoned  for  an  offence,  he  cannot  be  tried  for  the  same  offence  
nor  be  made  to  suffer  disabilities  on  that  account:  FALAE  V.  OBASANJO  (No  2)  (1999)  
OKONGWU  V.  STATE.  
 
The  authority  that  can  grant  pardon  to  a  convict  for  a  federal  offence  is  the  President  of  the  
Federal   Republic   of   Nigeria   while   the   State   Governor   is   the   authority   in   respect   of   state  
offences.-­‐S.175  &  212  CFRN  1999.  
 
The   power   of   the   President   to   grant   pardon   also   extends   to   person   convicted   or  
sentenced  by  a  court  –martial.  Also  for  federal  offences.  Governor  grants  pardon  in  
respect  of  state  offences.  
 
The  grant  of  pardon  may  be  free  or  subject  to  lawful  conditions  
 
The  burden  of  proving  that  a  convicted  person  was  pardoned  is  on  the  convict.    
   
In  addition  to  the  proof:  He  shall  produce  the  instrument  of  pardon  to  the  court  signed  by  
the  President  or  Governor  or  as  contained  in  the  official  Gazette  of  the  Government  .–  
OKONGWU  V.  THE  STATE;  
OBIDIKE  VS.THE  STATE  
 
An   application   for   pardon   by   a   convicted   person   can   only   be   properly   made   to   the  
committee   on   Prerogative   of   Mercy   and   not   to   the   supreme   Court   or   any   other   court.-­‐  
OKEKE  V.  THE  STATE  
 
EFFECT  OF  PARDON  
a.   A  convict  who  has  been  pardoned  will  no  longer  serve  the  penalty  imposed  on  him.  
b.   A  convict  who  has  been  pardoned  is  free  from  the  legal  disabilities  of  a  conviction.    He  
is  not  an  ex-­‐convict-­‐FALAE  v.  OBASANJO  (No2)  (1999)  
NB-­‐Okonkwo  v.  Council  of  Legal  Education-­a  pardoned  person  cannot  be  called  to  bar.  
 
WHEN  IS  AMNESTY  GRANTED?  
Amnesty  is  granted  to  persons  who  are  alleged  to  have  committed  an  offence  but  have  not  
been  charged  to  court  for  the  said  offence  -­‐ISIBOR  V.  THE  STATE.    
 
NB-­‐Criminal  justice  (release  from  custody)  (Special  provisions)  Act  cap  C40-­‐  the  chief  
justice  exercising  the  power  to  release  those  awaiting  trial  /commits  on  recommendation  
of  the  prison  authorities.  
Distinguish  between  pardon  and  autre  fois  convict/acquit.  
In   a   plea   of   pardon,   the   accused   person   is   saying   that   the   appropriate   authority   has  
pardoned  his  conviction,  while  an  accused  person  who  pleads  autre  fois  acquit  or  convict  is  
saying  that  he  has  been  acquitted  or  convicted  and  has  served  his  sentence,  thus  should  not  
be  tried  again  for  the  same  offence.  
Also  distinguish  it  from  nolle  prosequi  and  at  what  stage  each  is  applicable.    
 
11.  RIGHT  TO  SILENCE.  -­S.  36  (11)  OF  THE  1999  CONSTITUTION  AS  AMENDED.    
• The  accused  has  a  right  not  to  say  anything  at  his  trial  because  the  Prosecution  has  
the  burden  to  proof  his  guilt.    

• “No  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  compelled  to  give  
evidence  at  the  trial”.  This  right  to  silence  is  at  the  point  of  opening  his  defence.  
(This  does  not  mean  that  he  is  not  speaking  in  CT  but  he  is  not  bringing  a  defence  to  
his  case).  Also  this  right  to  silence  is  different  from  standing  mute  at  the  point  of  
arraignment  
• This  right  to  silence  is  also  replicated  in  other  statutes  –  Accused  is  a  competent  but  
not  compellable  witness  for  the  defence    
Ss.  236(1)  CPCL;  S.287  (1)CPL;  S.  244  ACJL  
• Similarly,   S.   180   EVIDENCE   ACT   2011   provides   that   an   accused   person   is   a  
competent  witness  for  the  defence  but  he  is  not  a  compellable  witness.  
• He  may  decide  to  remain  silent  and  not  say  anything  in  his  defence  till  the  end  of  the  
proceedings.  He  may  even  decide  not  to  call  witnesses.  
• When   an   accused   person   exercises   his   right   to   silence,   the   Prosecutor   cannot  
comment   on   the   accused   person’s   failure   to   give   evidence   in   his   defence   as   an  
admission  of  guilty  (in  that  it  is  an  admission  of  guilt)  
• However,  the  court  is  entitled  to  comment  and  draw  necessary  inferences  from  the  
accused  person’s  silence:  SUGH  v.  THE  STATE.  
• See   section   181   Evidence   Act:   the   CT,   prosecution   and   any   other   party   can  
comment   but   must   not   suggest   guilt   due   to   the   failure   to   give   evidence.   The   CT   is  
allowed  to  draw  necessary  inferences  from  the  accused  person’s  silence  in  the  case  
where  the  prosecution  has  brought  cogent  evidence  but  the  accused  does  not  reply.    
• Garba  v  State,  s236(1)  CPCL  
• Igabele  v  State    
• This  right  may  avail  an  accused   where   it   is   manifestly   clear  that  the  prosecution  
has  failed  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  accused.  
• NOTE:   On   appeal,   the   Appellant   Court   can   comment   on   the   silence   of   the   accused  
person-­‐GARBA  v.  THE  STATE  
 
DETRIMENTS  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  SILENCE  
• Implied  admission  of  Guilt-­‐S.181  of  the  Evidence  Act.  
• Where  he  remains  silent,  it  means  he  is  resting  his  case  on  that  of  the  Prosecution.    
• And  as  such,  must  accept  responsibility  for  his  action  as  inferred  from  his  conduct  in  
the  prevailing  circumstances.  MBANG  v.  STATE  
• In  IGABELE  v.  STATE:  the  Supreme  Court,  warned  that  it  could  be  RISKY  to  hold  on  
to  that  right  where  an  explanation  from  him  could  have  made  a  difference.  
 
NOTE  THE  FOLLOWING:  
• The  right  to  silence  is  a  constitutional  right  which  commences   at   the   close   of   the  
Prosecution’s   case   when   the   accused   person   is   called   upon   to   make   his  
defence.-­  
S.   36(11)   has   to   do   with   Right   to   silence   during   Trial   while   S.   35(2)   is   right   of   a  
suspect  to  remain  silent  after  arrest.  
• The  right  to  silence  does  not  apply  during  the  stage  of  taking  plea.  
 Where   the   accused   person   keeps   silent   after   charge   is   read   and   explained   to   him,  
the   Court   will   determine   whether   his   KEEPING   MUTE   was   out   of   MALICE   or   as   a  
result  of  INSANITY  
NB  ==#  Right  to  silence  should  not  be  confused  with  a  No  Case  Submission  
Note:    
Venue  of  the  CT  –  in  an  uncompleted  building  in  the  outskirts  of  Lagos.  Constitutional  issue  
in  relation  to  the  venue  –  wherever  the  judge  sits  is  the  courtroom  (e.g.  in  trying  to  de-­‐
congest  the  prisons,  the  High  CT  judges  even  sit  in  prisons.  It  is  the  judge  and  not  the  
building  per  se  that  constitutes  the  CT  for  the  purpose  of  the  proceedings  –  provided  all  the  
parties  in  the  matter  are  aware  of  the  venue.  Judge  does  not  have  to  give  reasons  for  the  
change  of  venue  (not  for  lawyer  to  question  this)–  judge  has  discretion  as  to  where  to  sit.  
But  would  be  ridiculous  for  the  Ct  to  take  proceedings  to  his  bedroom    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEEK  13-­  TRIAL  1-­ATTENDANCE  OF  PARTIES  AND  ARRAIGNMENT  
WHAT   IS   TRIAL   -­   A   judicial   examination   of   witnesses.   Criminal   trial   starts   with  
ARRAIGNMENT   and   ends   with   SENTENCING.   Trial   includes   arraignment,   examination   in  
chief   of   witnesses.   Cross   examination,   re-­‐examination,   tendering   of   exhibits,   addresses   of  
counsel,  judgment,  allocutus  and  sentence    
 
B-­‐PRELIMINARIES  TO  TRIAL  
Sittings   of   the   court-­refer   to   week   3.   Courts  sits  at  9am.  Mon-­‐Sat  are  juridical  days.  In  
practice,  CT  does  not  sit  on  Saturdays.  In  Lagos  (some  magistrate  CTs)  Sat  is  sometimes  a  
non-­‐juridical  day)  -­‐  see  s40  MCL  (Lagos)  2009:  designates  some  courts  to  sit  on  Saturday  or  
some   not   to   sit   on   Saturdays.   Sunday   and   public   holidays   are   non-­‐juridical   days.   CT   can  
only   sit   on   juridical   days.   With   the   agreement   of   counsel,   courts   can   sit   on   non-­‐juridical  
days.  See  Ososanmi   v   COP   (1952):  The  defence  counsel  said  he  could  get  vital  witnesses  in  
the  case  on  a  non-­‐juridical  day.  The  CT  agreed  to  it  and  asked  that  trial  be  held  on  a  non-­‐
juridical  day.  The  defence  was  convicted.  Defence  then  filed  an  appeal  based  on  the  fact  that  
the   court   sat   on   a   non-­‐juridical   day.   Held   that   proceedings   were   conducted   with   the  
agreement  of  parties  so  it  was  valid  
 
Publicity  of  trials-­refer   to   week   11&12.   S36(4)   Constitution,   s203   CPL,   s225(1)   CPCL,  
s200  ACJL.  Exceptions:   CT   may   sit   in   private   where   statute   authorised   it   e.g.   juveniles.   See  
36(4)   Constitution:   the   public   may   be   excluded   on   grounds   of   public   policy,   public   decency  
or  expediency.  S203  CPL,  ss25(2)  CPCL,  s201  ACJL.  Where  the  Minister  satisfied  the  CT  that  
it  will  not  be  in  the  public  interest  for  the  proceedings  to  be  held  in  public,  it  will  be  held  in  
camera:  Mandara  v  AG  Federation  (1984)  4  SC  8.  
Where   the   evidence   of   a   person   who   has   not   attained   the   age   of   17   is   to   be   held   in   relation  
to  the  offence  against  morality:  see  s204(2)  CPL.  This  will  be  held  in  camera.  
Public   may   be   excluded   in   the   interest   of   public   safety,   defence,   public   order,   and   public  
morality:  FRN  v  Asari-­Dokubo.  
Welfare  of  person  (s36(4)  Constitution)  
  
(A)PRESENCE  OF  THE  ACCUSED  PERSON  AT  THE  TRIAL    
The  accused  MUST  be  present  at  every  sittings  of  the  Court  from  arraignment  to  sentence.  
There  is  no  trial  in  absence  of  an  accused  in  Nigeria:  S.  210  of  the  CPL,  S.  153  of  the  CPCL,  
S.  208  of  the  ACJL  and  ADEOYE  VS.THE  STATE  (1999).  Trial  is  a  nullity  if  the  accused  is  
trialled  in  absentia  
EXCEPTIONS  WHERE  AN  ACCUSED’S  PRESENCE  WILL  BE  DISPENSED  ARE:    
a. He  misconducts  himself  in  the  Court  by  interrupting  the  proceedings  thus  rendering  
his   trial   in   his   presence   impracticable/impossible:   S.208   ACJL;   S.210   CPL;   S.153  
CPCL.  E.g.  –violence  etc-­‐note  that  APPEARANCE  or  REPUTATION  is  irrelevant.  
b. He   has   pleaded   guilty   in   writing   and   or   appears   in   court   and   pleads   guilty   through  
his  counsel  represented  by  a  counsel  on  a   Charge  whose  penalty  does  not  exceed  
N100  fine  or  6  months  imprisonment  or  both:  S.  100  of  the  CPL  (SOUTH  ONLY)  
c. Where   the   accused   person   is   of   unsound   mind   or   he   stands   mute   before   the   CT:  
s223(2)   CPL,   s320(2)   CPCL   &   217(2)   ACJL.   Absence   of   the   accused   person   in   the  
enquiry  as  to  the  sanity  of  the  accused  is  allowed.    
d. The  appearance  of  an  accused  person  against  whom  A   SUMMONS  is  issued  may  be  
dispensed   with   if   he   has   legal   representation   or   pleads   guilty   in   writing:   S.  
154(2)   of   the   CPCL   (NORTH   ONLY).   The   accused   person   must   be   present   for  
SENTENCING—S.154(3)  CPCL  
ORDERS  THE  COURT  CAN  MAKE  IF  AN  ACCUSED  IS  ABSENT  WITHOUT  COGENT  AND  
COMPELLING  REASONS    
a. Issue  a  Bench  warrant  for  his  arrest  if  he  is  already  on  bail  
b. Issue  a  production  warrant  to  the  Prison  officers  to  bring  him  to  the  Court  if  the  
accused  is  in  Prison  custody.    
c. Issue  a  warrant  of  arrest  against  the  accused  person  (If  in  respect  of  summons  -­‐
s.96  CPL)  
d. Revoke  his  bail  if  the  accused  has  been  admitted  to  bail.    

(B).  ABSENCE  OF  THE  COMPLAINANT  FOR  THE  TRIAL:  When  the  Complainant  (Police  
prosecutor  or  law  officer,  office  of  the  AG)  is  absent  in  Court  for  the  trial;  the  Court  may  
do  any  of  the  following:  S.  236  of  the  ACJL,  S.  280  of  the  CPL  and  S.  165  of  the  CPCL.        

a. Dismiss  the  action  if  satisfied  that  the  prosecution  had  adequate  information  of  
the   trial.   In   that   case,   the   accused   will   be   discharged   for   want   of   diligent  
prosecution  
b. If  a  cogent  reason  is  given  for  the  absence,  the  Court  will  adjourn  the  hearing  to  
another  date.  E.g.  an  emergency  happened  on  the  way  to  court    
 c. If  it  is  a  NON  CAPITAL  OFFENCE  and  the  reason  for  absence  is  not  cogent,  the  
court  will  proceed  with  the  trial  
d. If  it  is  a  CAPITAL  OFFENCE,  court  may  adjourn  because  judges  are  reluctant  to  
dismiss   such   matters-­‐   UDOFIA   V.   STATE   (Court   discountenanced  
complainant’s   request   for   adjournment   in   a   capital   matter)-­‐CONVICTION  
QUASHED  
 
 (C).  ABSENCE  OF  BOTH  PARTIES  IN  A  CRIMINAL  MATTER    

In  that  case,  the  Court  may:    

a. Issue  a  bench  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  accused  person  
b. Order  that  the  complainant  must  be  present  at  the  next  adjourned  date.  
c. Dismiss  the  case  
d.  Additionally,  order  for  cost  from  the  parties    
e. Order  that  notices  be  issued  to  the  Complainant  to  attend  Court  otherwise  the  
accused  will  be  discharged.    
S.  237  of  the  ACJL  and  S.  282  of  the  CPL.  
 
Adjournment  may  be:    
May  be  at  the  instance  of  the  Court,  at  the  instance  of  the  prosecution,  at  the  instance  of  the  
accused  or  his  counsel,  at  the  discretion  of  the  CT    
 
Appearances    
• Prosecution  to  announce  appearance  first  –  because  prosecution  initiated  the  case  
• Thereafter  counsel  to  the  accused  to  announce  appearance    
Capital  offences  
• There  is  mandatory  legal  representation  for  capital  offences:  s352  CPL,  s186  CPCL,  
Josiah  v  State,  Udofia  v  State  
 
D)  ATTENDANCE  OF  VITAL  WITNESSES    
• Both  parties  are  entitled  to  determine  the  number  of  witnesses  to  call.    
• No  particular  number  of  witnesses  is  required  to  establish  a  case  nor  must  the  
Prosecution  call  all  the  witnesses  listed  in  his  information.  It  can  call  only  one  
witness  if  it  is  sufficient.  –    
ADAJE  VS.  THE  STATE:  both  parties  didn’t  call  a  particular  witness.  CT  of  Appeal  
berated  the  court  and  prosecution  and  defence  counsel  as  there  is  no  way  justice  
could  be  done  without  calling  that  witness.  The  witness  was  vital  in  deciding  
 whether  or  not  the  accused  killed  the  victim.  Accused  alleged  that  he  was  held  down  
and  someone  was  told  to  beat  him  up  (this  person  was  not  called).    
 
JAMMAL  V.  STATE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
The  Court  may  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  by  issuance  of  any  of  the  following:    

a. Witness  Summons  on  any  witness    

b. Warrant  of  Arrest  if  a  witness  has  earlier  disregarded  a  Witness  Summons    
c. Subpoena   which   may   be   subpoena   duces   tecum   which   is   to   order   a   witness   to  
produce  document(s)  only  or  subpoena   ad   testificandum   which  is  to  order  a  witness  
to  come  to  Court  to  testify  only.      
S.  188  of  the  CPL,  S.  179,  186  of  the  ACJL  and  S.  162(2)  of  the  CPCL.      
 
NB:  In  practice,  the  above  processes  are  issued  upon  an  application  (may  be  a  written  
letter  addressed  to  the  Court  Registrar  or  by  a  Motion  Ex  Parte)  by  the  party  needing  a  
witness.    
 

(E)  ATTENDANCE  OF  COUNSEL  IN  COURT  

Every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  entitled  to  defend  himself  in  
person   or   by   a   legal   practitioner   of   his   choice  –   section  36(6)(c)  of  the  1999  Constitution;  
section   211   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Law  (CPL);   Awolowo   &  Ors   v.   Usman   Sarki   &   Ors  
(1962)  L.L.R.  177.  

Where   a   counsel   is   unable   to   attend,   the   court   must   be   informed   of   the   cogent   reason   to  
justify  his  absence;  or  another  counsel  is  briefed  to  take  up  the  matter.  The  danger  inherent  
in  counsel  being  absent  in  court  without  reasonable  excuse  is  the  exposure  of  the  accused  
to   the   task   of   defending   himself   –   Shemfe   v.   The   C.O.P   (1962)   All   NLR   87;   Gokpa   v.   The  
C.O.P.  (1961)  All  NLR  424.    

In  a  capital  offence,  the  accused  shall  be  assigned  a  counsel  to  represent  him.  –  Section   186  
of  the  CPL,  and  section  352  of  the  CPL.  In  Josiah  v.  The  State  (1985)  1  NWLR  (Pt.  1)  125,  
where  (in  a  capital  offence)  the  accused  was  not  represented  by  counsel,  the  court  held  that  
it  amounted  to  denying  him  a  fair  trial;  and  this  vitiated  the  trial.  

It   should   be   noted   that   under   sections  6   and   8   Legal   Aid   (Amendment)   Act   2011,   an  
accused   person   whose   annual   income   does   not   exceed   N18,000   is   entitled   to   free   legal  
representation  in  respect  of  criminal  proceedings.    

There   is   the   need   for   a   counsel   to   be   present   in   court   and   conduct   his   case   diligently  
especially   where   an   accused   is   charged   with   a   capital   offence.   It   has   been   held   by   the  
Supreme  Court  that  where  a  counsel  does  not  appear  to  conduct  his  case  or  absents  himself  
when   it   matters,   e.g.   in   a   murder   charge,   a   conviction   of   the   accused,   who   is   forced   to  
conduct   his   case   may   not   hold;   for   it   will   amount   to   a   denial   of   fair   trial   –   Udofia   v.   The  
State   (1988)   7   S.C.   N.   J.   188;   Okojie   &   Ors.   v.   The   State   (1989)   1   NWLR   (Pt.   100)   642,  
where   the   accused   were   charged   with   armed   robbery.   During   the   trial   their   counsel   did  
little  or  no  cross  examination  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  despite  damaging  incriminating  
evidence   against   the   accused   persons   and   they  were   convicted.   The   Supreme   Court  
lamented  on  the  manner  the  case  was  handled,  more  so,  when  it  was  a  matter  of  life  and  
death.  
 
DUTIES  OF  COUNSELS  AND  PRESIDING  JUDGES  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS  
(A.)  DUTIES  OF  A  PROSECUTING  COUNSEL    
i)  To  be  candid  and  fair,  not  trying  to  secure  conviction  by  all  means.    
R.  37  (4)  of  the  RPC,  ENAHORO  VS.  STATE.    
ii)  He  is  not  to  withhold  the  existence  of  any  adverse  decision  on  a  point  of  Law  favourable  
to  the  accused.  –ANANI  VS.  R.    
iii)  He  must  make  available  to  the  accused  person  evidence  favourable  to  the  accused.    
STATE  VS  ODOFIN  BELLO;  
Rule  32  RPC;  R  v.  Sugarman  
iv)  A  prosecutor  must  be  present  at  the  trial  of  the  accused  at  any  time  the  case  comes  up:  
R.  14  RPC.  
v)  Duty  not  to  forum  shop/to  avoid  forum  shopping-­‐It  is  unprofessional  for  a  Prosecutor  to  
look  for  a  convenient  court  where  the  accused  should  be  tried:  Ibori  v.  FRN  
vi)  The  Prosecuting  Counsel  has  a  duty  to  call  and  examine  all  material  witnesses  whether  
their  testimony  would  be  favourable  to  the  case  of  the  Prosecution  or  not.  
vii)  Duty  to  conduct  case  with  due  diligence.  Counsel  must  be  fully  prepared  to  go  on  with  
the  case  and  not  seek  unnecessary  adjournment  thereby  wasting  the  court’s  time.  
viii)  Duty  to  make  available  to  the  accused  person  proof  of  evidence:  UKET  V.  FRN  
ix)  Duty  to  avoid  frivolous  institution  of  criminal  proceedings  R.   37   (5)   RPC  provides  that  a  
public   prosecutor   shall   not   institute   a   criminal   charge   unless   the   charge   is   supported   by  
probating  evidence.  
x)  Prosecution  should  not  be  too  relaxed  when  a  plea  of  guilty  is  entered.  He  must  furnish  
the  court  with  full  facts-­‐OMOJU  V.FRN.  
 
(B.)  DUTY  OF  THE  DEFENCE  COUNSEL    
a. He  is  not  to  return  the  brief  of  a  person  charged  with  a  capital  offence.    R.  24(1)  of  
the   RPC   (It   is   the   duty   of   a   lawyer   to   accept   any   brief   in   the   court   in   which   he  
professes  to  practice  provided  the  proper  professional  fee  is  offered  unless  there  are  
special  circumstances  which  justify  his  refusal)   and   R   VS.   UZORUKWU.   Even  where  
accused  confesses  to  guilt  to  his  counsel,  it  is  unethical  for  counsel  to  disclose  same  
or  to  withdraw  from  handling  his  defendant.  
b. He   is   to   undertake   the   defence   of   a   person   charged   with   a   capital   offence  
competently  and  with  dedication:   37(1)   &(2)   of   the   RPC   and   JOSIAH   VS.   STATE.  
In  UDOFIA   VS   STATE,  it  was  held  that  a  youth  Corp  Member  has  no  experience  to  
be  assigned  to  defend  an  accused  on  a  capital  offence.  UDO  V.STATE;  R.14&16  RPC.  
c. Duty   to   be   present   in   court.   The   Defence   Counsel   must   be   personally   present   in  
court  especially  where  the  charge  against  his  client  is  one  for  murder:  Rule  37(1)  
 d. When   client   discloses   a   fact   to   a   counsel,   it   is   unethical   to   disclose   it   to   anyone  
without  the  express  permission  of  the  client,  -­‐R.  19  RPC  
e. Where   the   accused   person   admits   guilt   and   confessed   to   having   committed   the  
offence   the   Defence   counsel   should   not   put   up/cook   up   adverse/false   evidence   to  
show  the  accused  as  innocent:  R.15(3)  RPC  
(C)  DUTY  OF  A  PRESIDING  JUDGE    

a. The  Judge  must  be  an  impartial  arbiter.    The  Judge  or  Magistrate  in  a  criminal  case  
must  see  himself  and  be  seen  as  a  neutral,  unbiased  and  fair  umpire  
b. Not   to   interject   too   much   or   put   damaging   questions   to   the   accused   leading   to  
conviction.  OKODUWA  VS.  THE  STATE,  ONUOHA  VS.  THE  STATE,  USO  VS.  COP.  
c. The  Judge  has  a  duty  to  grant  all  the  parties  equal  right  of  audience  to  the  court    
d. The  Judge  must  be  fair  and  respectful  to  the  Bar.  
e. Court  must  ensure  justice  is  done  when  a  plea  of  guilty  is  entered  and  must  ensure  
that  he  truly  intended  to  plea  same  before  sentence-­‐KAYODE  V.STATE  
 
 
 (D)  DUTIES  OF  A  COURT  REGISTRAR  
1.   The  Registrar  accepts  all  processes  for  filing.  
2.   Ensure  that  the  case  file  is  ready  and  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Judge  before  the  
date  for  hearing.  
3.   Ensure  that  hearing  notices  and  other  processes  are  served  on  all  the  parties.  
4.   The  Registrar  makes  records  of  proceedings  available  to  the  parties  upon  demand.  
5.   Ensure  the  perfection  of  a  bail  bond  where  necessarily.  
6.   For   death   sentence,   the   Registrar   shall   as   soon   as   possible   forward   copies   of   the  
certificate  issued  by  the  Judge  to  the  Prison  Officer  as  well  as  the  Sheriff.  
7.  Administer  oath  
 
COMMENCEMENT  OF  TRIALS/  ARRAIGNMENT    
• Trial  commences  once  the  accused  person  pleads  to  the  Charge.  –  
S.  215  of  the  CPL,    
S.  211  of  the  ACJL,    
S.  161  &  187  of  the  CPCL  and  
 FAWEHINMI  V.  IGP;  
 ADIO  V.STATE.  
• Arraignment   is   the   MANDATORY   process   of   taking   the   plea   of   an   accused   to   the  
charge  before  the  Court.-­‐  
NB-­‐Plea  is  fundamental  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  when  the  accused  has  not  pleaded  to  
the  charge,  the  court  cannot  assume  jurisdiction-­‐NWAFOR  OKEGBU  V.STATE.  
• Prosecutor   files   the   charge   at   the   registry   of   the   CT   after   obtaining   leave   (where  
necessary)  
 • The  Registrar  of  the  Court  calls  out  the  names  of  the  parties  to  the  case    
• The  accused  is  required  to  proceed  to  the  dock  
• The  accused  shall  be  placed  before  the  court  unfettered  –  the  accused  presented  to  
the  Court  without  any  restraints  such  as  handcuffs,  leg  chains  etc  
• The   Registrar/officer   of   court   reads   out   the   charge   or   information   to   the   accused   to  
the  satisfaction  of  the  court    
• The  accused  is  required  to  plead  instantly  to  the  charge  
• Counsel  to  the  accused  cannot  plead  on  behalf  of  his  client:  R  v  Pepple:  the  trial  was  
in  progress  when  the  counsel  announced  to  the  CT  that  the  accused  wants  to  change  
his  plea  to  guilty  which  the  CT  recorded  and  convicted  the  appeal.  This  was  quashed  
on  appeal  since  it  was  counsel  and  not  the  accused  that  entered  the  plea  
• The   charge   is   read   and   explained   to   the   accused   and   his   plea   taken,   the   trial   is   a  
nullity  if  this  it  not  done:  IGP  v  Rosseck,  Kujbo  v  State,  s215  CPL  
• The  Court  shall  record  the  plea  entered  by  the  accused:  Edu  v  The  Srare  
 
PROCEDURE  FOR  A  VALID  ARRAIGNMENT    

S.215  CPL;  211  ACJL;  S.161(1)  and  S.187(1)CPCL  

1. The  accused  must  be  unfettered  and  placed  in  the  dock  (note-­‐exceptions)  

2. The  Charge/Information  must  be  read  over  and  explained  to  the  accused  in  the  
language  that  he  understands  to  the  satisfaction  of  court  by  the  registrar  or  other  
officer  of  the  court.  

3. The  accused  will  be  called  upon  to  plead  instantly  to  the  Charge  unless  there  is  a  good  
reason  not  to  do  so.  

NOTE-­‐  all  the  conditions  of  an  arraignment  must  be  done  or  the  Charge  to  be  read  in  the  
presence  of  the  defendant’s  Legal  Practitioner  if  represented-­  S.  211  (1)  of  the  ACJL.  
Note  that  where  accused  does  not  understand  English  language,  an  interpreter  must  be  
provided  at  no  cost.    

The  court  must  equally  RECORD  that  the  charge  was  fully  read  and  explained-­‐  AKPAN  v.  
STATE.  NB-­failure  to  do  so  however  will  not  nullify  the  trial  

EFFECT  OF  NON-­COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  PROCEDURE  FOR  ARRAIGNMENT-­Failure  to  

comply  with  the  three  requirements  for  a  valid  arraignment  renders  the  whole  trial  a  
nullity.  –  KAJUBO  VS  THE  STATE;  OGUNYE  VS.THE  STATE;  IGP  V.ROSSEK(failure  to  
read  charge);  TOBY  V.STATE.  
TAKING  OF  PLEA  
• The  plea  must  be  unambiguous  or  unequivocal.    
• Plea  is  personal  as  an  accused  must  plead  to  the  Charge  himself:  ADAMU  VS.  THE  
STATE    
• Any  change  or  alteration  in  his  plea  must  be  done  by  him  and  none  other.  
• A  legal  practitioner  cannot  plead  for  an  accused/defendant-­‐  
R  VS.  PEPPLE    
THE  STATE  VS.  EKPO    
• Where  a  Charge  Sheet  contains  more  than  one  Count/  Head  of  Charge,  the  accused  
is   to   plead   separately  to  each   of   the   Counts   in   the   Charge   Sheet   in   the   language   he  
understands  and  the  TRIAL  judge  must  record  the  plea  to  each  count.  Block  plea  is  
not  allowed.  AYINDE  VS.  THE  STATE  (1980).  
• NB-­‐The  absence  of  the  accused  person’s  Counsel  during  the  taking  of  his  plea  shall  
not  render  his  trial  void:  EFFIOM  VS.  STATE.  
• Where  several   accused  persons  are  jointly   charged,   EACH  accused  person  must  
take  his  plea  for  himself   personally.  -­‐ADAMU   V.   THE   STATE   (1986)-­‐  a  plea  by  one  
accused  person  on  behalf  of  other  accused  persons  was  held  to  have  rendered  the  
trial  null  and  void.  
• If  an  accused  person  is  transferred  to  another  court  he  MUST  plea  AFRESH  
• Where   there   are   several   accused   persons   who   speak   20   languages;   they   need  
Separate  interpreters:  EYIDE  V.  STATE.  
• NOTE-­   (EXAMS)   However,  the  charges  may  be  read   over   and   explained   once  to  
all  the  accused  persons  but  they  must  plead  individually  to  the  charges.  
• A  deaf  and  dumb  accused  is  not  prevented  from  taking  his  plea.  S.  176  of  the  
Evidence  Act  2011.  The  CT  shall  obtain  his  plead  in  a  manner  understood  by  him  
by  using  sign  language,  lip  reading  or  writing.    
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE/DEFECT  IN  PLEA-­The   trial   will   amount   to   a   nullity-­‐Amachukwu  v.  
FRN  
RECORDING  OF  PLEA  

• The  plea  of  an  accused  is  to  be  recorded  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  language  used.  

-­‐EDU  V.  STATE;  S.218  CPL.  

• Failure  to  add  the  phrase  “it  was  done  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  will  not  render  
a  plea  defective-­‐SUNDAY  AMALA  V.STATE.  

• Where   there   are   several   accused   persons,   their   pleas   must   be   recorded  
separately  on  the  record  of  proceedings  (CAUSES  DELAY-­‐EFCC  CASES)    
• NOTE-­failure   to   record   separate   pleas   shall   not   vitiate   the   trial   UNLESS   it   is  
shown  to  occasion  a  MISCARRIAGE  of  justice-­‐SHARFAL  V.STATE  
  

EFFECT   OF   FAILURE-­Failure  to  record  the  plea  of  the  accused,  the  trial  is  a  nullity.  -­‐EDE  
VS.STATE.  

INSTANCES  WHERE  AN  ACCUSED  PERSON  MAY  NOT  PLEAD  INSTANTLY  TO  THE  
CHARGE  

Taking  of  plea  by  an  accused  person  is  mandatory  but  instances  exist  where  an  accused  
may  not  instantly  plead  to  the  Charge  which  are:    

a. The  absence  of  service  of  the  Charge  to  the  accused    
b. A  preliminary  objection  is  raised    
c. Where  an  accused  person  stands  mute  (silent)  

PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  
The  accused  person  may  raise  preliminary  objections  to  his  trial  by  the  court  rather  than  
plead  to  the  charge  on  the  following  grounds.  
1.   OBJECTION  ON  GROUNDS  OF  LACK  OF  JURISDICTION.  
This  may  be  on  the  ground  that  the  court:  
a.   Lacks  the  jurisdiction  to  try  the  offender.  
b.   Lacks  the  jurisdiction  to  try  the  offence  
c.   Is  not  properly  constituted  as  regards  to  membership  or  
d.   The  case  is  not  commenced  according  to  due  process.  
Where   the   objection   succeeds,   he   may   be   re-­‐arrested   and   arraigned   before   a   CT   of  
competent  jurisdiction  
 
NB-­‐REFER  TO  WEEK  4  
2.   OBJECTION  TO  FORMAL  DEFECT  ON  THE  FACE  OF  THE  CHARGE  
• This   objection   ought   to   be   made   after   the   charge   is   read   over   to   the   accused  
person  and  before  he  pleads.  
• In  Obakpolo  v.  The  State,   the   SC   held   that   an   accused   that   pleads   to   a   charge   after  
it  is  read  and  explained  to  him,  might  not  thereafter  successfully  raise  an  objection  
to  a  formal  defect  on  the  face  of  the  charge.    His  plea  to  the  charge  is  a  submission  to  
the  jurisdiction.  
• Duplicity,   ambiguity,   misjoinder   of   offences,   misjoinder   of   offenders.   Note,  
where   the   defect   is   minor,   it   can   be   cured   in   court.   However,   where   it   is   a  
major   effect,   the   accused   is   discharged   and   the   prosecution   has   to   file   a   new  
charge  
• This  should  be  done  before  the  plead  is  taken:  s167  CPL,  s216(4)  ACJL  
 
3.   OBJECTION  TO  DOUBLE  TRIAL  (plea  of  autrefois  acquit/convict)  
 • It  can  be  raised  at  any  time  before  judgment.  An  accused  person,  who  can  show  that  
the   he   had   been   previously   tried   for   the   same   offence   by   a   court   of   competent  
jurisdiction  and  was  either  convicted  or  acquitted,  can  object  to  his  subsequent  trial  
for  the  same  offence:  S.  36(9)  CFRN,  s181  CPL,  s223(1)  CPCL.  
• A   man   is   not   to   be   prosecuted   twice   for   the   same   offence:   rule   against   double  
jeopardy  
 
4.   OBJECTION  ON  GROUND  OF  PARDON  
• Any   person   who   had   been   pardoned   of   a   criminal   offence   can   raise   a   preliminary  
objection   to   his   trial   for   the   same   offence:   S.   36   (10)   CFRN,   s175   &   212  
Constitution,    
• Okongwu   v   State:   it   is   duty   of   the   person   pardoned   to   produce   the   certificate   of  
pardon  to  prove  it  
• Pardon   is   recommended   by   a   Committee   on   prerogative   of   mercy.   Therefore,   where  
an   accused   person   tenders   an   instrument   of   pardon   in   objection   to   his   trial,   and   the  
Court   is   satisfied,   the   accused   person   will   not   be   called   upon   to   make   a   plea.     The  
charge  against  him  will  be  discharged.  
 
5.   OBJECTION  ON  GROUND  THAT  THE  CRIMINAL  CASE  IS  STATUTE    
BARRED.  
• Once   a   crime   is   committed,   it   gives   rise   to   a   cause   of   action   against   the   alleged  
offender.  
• Note  only  few  cases  where  there  are  limitation  period  
• Treason   (2yr   limitation   period),   sedition   (6   months   limitation   period),   custom  
offences   (7yrs),   defilement   of   girls   under   13   and   imbeciles   (2months   limitation  
period  
EFFECT  OF  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS-­If  any  of  the  objections  are  upheld,  the  accused  
will  be  discharged,  if  overruled  the  accused  will  be  asked  to  take  his  plea.  
FAILURE   OF   ACCUSED   PERSON   TO   PLEAD   DUE   TO   MALICE   OR   OTHERWISE-­SECTIONS  
220  CPL,  S.  217  ACJL,  S.188  CPCL  
• Where   an   accused   person   refuses   to   plead,   it   may   be   a   deliberate   act   or   an  
inadvertent  act.  
• The  Court’s  duty  is  to  conduct  a  preliminary  investigation  to  find  out  the  reasons  for  
such  refusal.  –  S.  220  and  223  of  the  CPL,  S.  188  of  the  CPCL  and  S.  215-­218  of  
the  ACJL.  
• If   the   reason   is   not   a   preliminary   objection,   the   Court   will   ask   the   accused   to  
plead  to  the  Charge  failing  which  a  plea  of  not  guilty  will  be  recorded.    

S.  215  of  the  ACJL,  S.  220  of  the  CPL,  S.  188  of  the  CPCL  and  GAJI  VS.STATE  
 • The  investigation  MUST  be  a  medical  examination  conducted  by  a  MEDICAL  
OFFICER-­‐R  v.  OGOR  
• If  the  medical  investigation  reveals  that  the  accused  person  only  stood  mute  out  of  
malice   (DELIBRATE   ACT)   the   court   shall   enter   a   plea   of   not   guilty   for   him   and  
thereafter  proceed  with  his  trial  –  GAJI  v  THE  STATE,  YESUFU  V.  STATE  (1972):  the  
accused   persons   were   charged   for   armed   robbery   and   three   of   them   behaved   funny  
while  in  the  dock  (moving  up  and  down  and  shaking  their  mouths).  CT  ordered  for  
an  investigation.  The  CT  found  that  their  muteness  was  out  of  malice  and  recorded  a  
plead  of  not  guilty    
• If  the  medical  investigation  (pursuant  to  S.223CPL;  S.320CPCL)  reveals  that  the  
accused  person  stood  mute  due  to  unsound  mind  (INADVERTENT  
ACT)(referred  to  as  visitation  of  God)  the  court  will  discontinue  the  trial  of  the  
accused,  and  order  that  he  be  remanded  in  custody  usually  an  Asylum,  at  the  
pleasure  of  the  Governor.-­  S.223  &  224  CPL;  S.  320  &  321  CPCL;  219  ACJL  R  
V.OGOR;  YESUFU  V.STATE,  ADAMA  v  DPP  
THE  PLEAS  AVAILABLE  TO  AN  ACCUSED  PERSON  
1. Plea  of  Guilty  
2. Plea  of  not  Guilty  
3. Plea  of  not  Guilty  by  Reason  of  Insanity.  
4. Plea  of  pardon  
5. Plea  of  autrefois  convict/acquit  
 
NOTE(EXAMS)-­There  is  no  plea  like  ‘guilty  with  reasons’-­‐AREMU  V.COP  
A. PLEA  OF  GUILTY  
SECTION  218  CPL,  213  ACJL,  S.  187  (2)  CPCL,  S.  161  (2)  CPCL  
EFFECT  OF  THE  PLEA-­Where   an   accused   person   pleads   guilty,   the   court  may  convict   the  
accused  person.  
CONDITIONS  FOR  CONVICTION  BASED  ON  A  PLEA  OF  GUILTY  
1. The   court   must   be   satisfied   that   the   accused   understands   the   charge   read   to   him.    
The   basic   ingredients   constituting   the   offence   must   be   explained   to   the   accused.-­‐
Kayode   v.   State(mere   affirmation   of   understanding   without   full   meaning)-­‐HELD  
WRONG(APPEAL  ALLOWED.  
2. The   court   must   record   the   plea   of   guilty   made   by   the   accused   person   as   nearly   as  
possible  in  the  words  used  by  him  S.  218  CPL  
3. The   Court   would   call   upon   the   Prosecution   to   restate   the   fact   of   the   offence   and  
ask   the   accused   whether   his   plea   of   guilty   is   to   the   facts   as   stated   by   the  
Prosecution:  S.  213  ACJL;  Osuji  v.  IGP  
4. The  Court  will  not   take  or  record  the   plea   of   guilty  if  the  accused  rescinds  on  the  
facts  stated  by  the  Prosecution.  -­S.  213  of  the  ACJL  
5. The   plea   of   the   accused   must   be   unequivocal   and   unambiguous   i.e.   he   must   have  
intended   to   admit   the   offence-­‐   AREMU   V.   C.O.P   (plea   of   guilty   with   reasons).  
CONVICTION  QUASHED  
6. The  facts  stated  by  the  Prosecution  MUST  contain  all  the  ingredients  of  a  charge  to  
which  the  accused  pleaded  guilty  -­‐ABELE  V.  TIV  NATIVE  AUTHORITY  (substituted  
sentence  on  appeal)  
7. If   the   offence   can   only   be   proved   by   EXPERT   evidence,   such   evidence   must   be  
tendered  before  the  accused  can  be  convicted  on  the  plea.    
Example  is  in  drug  related  offences  that  must  be  proved  by  expert  evidence.      
ESSIEN  VS.  KING,  STEVENSON  V.COP,  ISHOLA  VS.  STATE.  However,  a  decision  by  
the   CT   of   Appeal   in   Chukwu   v   FRN   (2013)   12   NWLR   (Pt   1369)   488.   Case   on  
unlawful  possession  of  Indian  hemp,  which  requires  forensic  evidence.  The  Ct  held  
that   since   accused   pleaded   guilty,   there   is   nothing   in   218   CPL   to   suggest   that   the  
report  of  the  expert  must  be  made  available  before  conviction.  Therefore,  they  can  
be   convicted   without   such   forensic   report.   Tendering   the   evidence   would   be  
superfluous  since  we  all  know  what  marijuana  is  and  what  it  smells  like.    
8. Once   the   Court   is   satisfied   that   the   accused   intended   to   admit   the   truth   of   all   the  
essential  elements  of  the  offence,  it  will  convict  and  pass  sentence  on  the  accused.      
ONOUHA   VS.   STATE.   (mere   admission   of   taking   money   NOT   conclusive   proof   of  
stealing(CONVICTION  QUASHED)  
 
WHEN  A  PLEA  OF  GUILTY  MUST  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  PLEA  OF  NOT  GUILTY  
1. Where  an  accused  makes  an  unequivocal  plea  of  guilty  but  subsequently  produces  
evidence  or  makes  statements  denying  liability  for  the  offence  charged-­‐ONUOHA  
V  IGP  
2. If  an  accused  pleads  guilty  to  the  Charge  in  a  capital  offence,  the  plea  of  not  guilty  
MUST  be  recorded.    
S.  218  of  the  CPL,  S.  215  of  the  ACJL,  R.  VS.  The  GUEST;  OLABODE  V.  STATE;  
RATIONALE-­‐Court  will  not  want  an  innocent  person  to  die  for  an  offence  he  did  not  
commit;  the  prosecution  must  prove  such  allegations  beyond  reasonable  doubt;  the  court  
must  ensure  all  ingredients  of  the  offence  are  present.  It  is  better  to  allow  100  guilty  
persons  to  go  free  than  to  kill  one  innocent  soul.    
3. Where   an   accused   person   pleads   guilty   to   an   offence   not   charged   and   prosecution  
refuses  to  drop  earlier  charge.  
4. Where  a  plea  is  ambiguous  
5. Where  the  accused  rescinds  on  the  facts  stated  by  the  Prosecution.  –  
S.  213  of  the  ACJL  
NOTE-­An  accused  can  appeal  against  his  conviction  notwithstanding  his  plea  of  guilty.  
ESSIEN  VS.  R.    
 
RULES   GUIDING   PLEA   OF   GUILTY   TO   AN   OFFENCE   NOT   CHARGED   BY   THE  
PROSECUTION  
• An   accused   may   plead   guilty   to  an  offence  not  charged   and   plead   not   guilty   to   the  
offence  charged  with:  s219   CPL,   R   v   Kelly   1965.  The  Court  may   convict   him  on  
the  offence  not  charged  if  the  prosecution  consents  and  drop  the  earlier  Charge.  
 • If  the  prosecution  refuses,  the  Court  will  record  not  guilty  and  his  trial  will  
commence.    
• Upon  trial,  if  the  offence  charged  with  fails,  the  Prosecution  is  barred  from  
prosecuting  the  other  offence  pleaded  guilty  to  but  with  which  the  accused  was  
not  charged.    
S.214  of  the  ACJL  and  R  VS.  KELLY    
 
WITHDRAWAL/CHANGE  OF  A  PLEA    
Plea  of  guilty  can  only  be  changed  with  the  leave  of  the  Court  at  any  time  before  
judgment.  It  may  be  by  written  application  or  orally.  After  conviction,  he  cannot  apply  to  
change  his  plea  of  guilty.  R.  V.GUEST.  The  process  of  taking  a  fresh  plea  must  be  
followed.  
 
NB-­Once  a  plea  of  guilty  is  taken  the  court  becomes  functus  officio  -­‐R  V.  GUEST.  Functus  
officio  is  a  branch  of  the  doctrine  of  res  judicata  preventing  the  re-­‐opening  of  a  matter  
before  the  same  court,  tribunal  or  other  statutory  actor,  which  rendered  the  final  decision  
in  the  absence  of  statutory  authority.  
B. PLEA  OF  NOT  GUILTY  

• Most  popular  plea  in  criminal  trials.  

• Burden   of   proof   here   lies   on   the   prosecution   to   establish   the   guilt   of   the   accused  
beyond   reasonable   doubt-­‐.S.135  EA  2011  EXCEPT  when   the   accused   has   a   burden  
of  proving  some  particular  facts-­‐AREH  V.  COP.  

EFFECT  OF  PLEA-­The  accused  is  deemed  to  have  put  himself  upon  his  trial  and  that  the  
Prosecution  should  prove  his  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  –  
S.  217  of  the  CPL,  S.  188  and  189  of  the  CPCL  and  S.  212  of  the  ACJL.  
C. PLEA  OF  NOT  GUILTY  BY  REASON  OF  INSANITY  

S.  320-­322  of  the  CPCL,    

S.  217-­219  of  the  ACJL,  
 S.  229-­230  of  the  CPL,  
 R.VS.  OGOR  and  
EKPE  VS.  STATE.  EFFECT  OF  PLEA-­It  is  to  the  effect  that  the  accused  person  is  not  
criminally  liable  for  his  acts  or  omission  (lack  of  mens  rea).  
The  court  will  determine  three  basic  questions  
i.   Whether  the  alleged  offence  was  indeed  committed.  
ii.   Whether  the  accused  committed  the  offence,  and  
iii.   Whether  he  was  insane  at  the  time  of  committing  the  offence.  

If  the  accused  was  sane  at  the  commission  of  the  offence,  a  plea  of  not  guilty  will  be  entered  
and   the   trial   will   proceed.   If   at   the   time   of   commission,   the   accused   was   insane,   the   CT   will  
order   that   he   be   remanded   in   a   mental   asylum   at   the   pleasure   of   the   Governor:   KARIMU  V  
STATE,  LOKE  V  STATE    

 
OPTION  OPEN  TO  COURT  IF  NO  OFFENCE  WAS  COMMITTED  BY  THE  ACCUSED-­There  
will  be  no  further  inquiry.    
 

OPTION  OPEN  TO  THE  COURT  IF  ACCUSED  DID  NOT  COMMIT  THE  OFFENCE  
If  the  accused  did  not  commit  the  offence,  then  the  question  of  his  mental  state  at  that  time  
the  offence  was   committed   will   not   be   relevant.   At  the  conclusion  of  the  trial,  the  court  
will   order   that   the   accused   must  be  discharged  and  acquitted   and   thereby   obviating   the  
need  to  inquire  into  the  mental  state  of  the  accused.  

OPTION  OPEN  TO  THE  COURT  IF  ACCUSED  COMMITED  THE  OFFENCE  WHILE  SANE.  
If  the  court  finds  that   the   accused   committed   the   offence  and  was  sane  at   the   time   of  
the   commission   of   the   offence,   the   accused   would   have   a   verdict   of   guilt   returned  
against  him  and  he  would  be  sentenced  appropriately.  
 

OPTION  OPEN  TO  THE  COURT  IF  ACCUSED  COMMITED  THE  OFFENCE  WHILE  INSANE  
If  the  court  finds  that  the  accused  committed  the  offence  but  at  the  time  of  commission  of  
the  offence  was  insane,  he  would  be  found  not  to  be  guilty  of  reasons  of  insanity.  
Hence,  the  accused  would  be  detained  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Governor:  S.230(1)  CPL.    
 
At   the   discretion   of   the   governor,   the   accused   shall   be   confined   in   a   mental   health,  
asylum,  prison  or  other  suitable  place  of  safe  custody-­ADAMS  V.  D.P.P.  
 

In   KARIMU   V.   STATE,   an   accused   was   convicted   without   consideration   of   evidence   of  

insanity   at   trial   court.   CA   allowed   the   appeal   and   ordered   custodial   sentence   (detention   at  
pleasure  of  governor)  
 
PLEA  BARGAINING:    

MEANING-­It  is  a  negotiated  agreement  between  the  Prosecution  and  an  accused  where  the  
accused   pleads   guilty   to   a   lesser   offence   or   some   Charges   in   exchange   for   some   lesser  
sentence  or  a  dismissal  of  other  charges.    

LEGAL  FRAMEWORK  It  is  only  provided  for  statutorily  in  Lagos  State  Law  and  it  applies  
to  all  kinds  of  offences.-­‐S.75&76  ACJL.  The  AG  has  power  to  accept  and  consider  plea  
bargain  in  the  interest  of  justice;  public  interest  etc-­‐s.75ACJL.  However  the  application  is  
growing  in  practice  since  it  has  been  employed  by  the  EFCC  in  corruption  cases-­‐  S.  14(2)  
EFCC  Act.  NB-­compounding  in  S.339  PC  is  different  from  plea  bargain.  
 
TYPES  OF  PLEA  BARGAIN  
a.   Charge   bargaining   (accused   pleads   guilty   to   the   charge   or   part   of   charge   or   to   a   lesser  
offence  and  agreed  to  forfeit  properties  to  the  state).-­‐S.76  ACJL.    
b.   Sentence   bargain   (accused   may   be   told   in   advance   what   his   sentence   would   be   if   he  
pleads  guilty  to  the  charge.NOTE-­‐s.339  CPCL(COMPOUNDING)  
The  agreement  may  include  compensation  or  restitution.    
Tafa   Balogun’s   case   (former   IG   of   Police)   –   was   sentenced   to   only   6   months   for  
embezzling  millions  of  naira.  
PROCEDURE  FOR  PLEA  BARGAIN  IN  LAGOS  STATE  
1. A  plea  or  sentence  agreement  may  be  entered  by  the  prosecution  (law  officer),the  
defendant  or  his  counsel-­‐s.76(1)  ACJL.  

2. The  Prosecution  must  consult  with  the  IPO  (investigating  police  officer)  and  where  
feasible   the   victim   as   to   the   inclusion   of   compensation   and   restitution   before   an  
agreement  is  reached-­‐S.76(2)  ACJL  

3. The   prosecutor   if   feasible   shall   give   the   defendant   room   to   make   representations   as  
to  the  contents  of  the  agreement-­s.76(3)  ACJL.  

4. The   judge   (before   whom   the   case   is   pending)   should   not   participate   in   the  
agreement  leading  to  the  plea  bargain-­‐s.76(5)  ACJL  

5. The   prosecution   may   inform   the   Court   of   contents   of   agreement   with   a   view   of  
seeking  direction  in  general  terms.  

6. The  agreement  must  be  in  writing  and  signed  by  both  parties  and  must  contain  the  
fact  that  the  defendant  has  been  informed  of  his  right  to:  

a. Remain  silent  
 b. Consequences  of  not  remaining  silent  

c. Not   to   make   any   confession   or   admission   that   can   be   used   in   evidence  

against  him  

d. Full  terms  of  the  agreement:  S.76(4)  

7. Terms   of   the   agreement   is   presented   to   the   court   by   the   prosecution   and   court  
enters  judgment  S.  76(6)  

8. The   court   must   confirm   the   correctness   or   voluntariness   of   the   agreement   from   the  
defendant  before  entering  it  as  judgment-­‐s.76(7)  &8  

9. If  the  judge  is  not  satisfied,  he  will  order  the  matter  to  proceed  to  trial-­‐s.76(7)(b)  

10. If   the   judge   imposes   a   higher   sentence   than   agreed   the   defendant   may   agree   OR  
withdraw  from  the  agreement  and  a  fresh  trial  would  be  commenced  before  another  
judge.-­‐S.76(9)  

11. If   there   is   a   fresh   trial,   reference   shall   not   be   made   to   the   agreement   and   it   shall   not  
be  an  admission  of  guilt:  S.76(10z)  

ADVANTAGES  OF  PLEA  BARGAIN      

1. It  saves  cost  of  litigation    

2. It  is  good  for  the  decongestion  of  the  Courts  and  Penal  institutions    

3. The  State  can  recover  especially  in  embezzlement  cases,  i.e.  money  and  assets  from  
the  accused.  

4. The  defendant/accused  can  avoid  higher  sentences    

5. Publicity  is  avoided.      

RESTORATIVE  JUSTICE    

MEANING-­This   is   a   theory   of   justice   that   places   emphasis   on   repairing   the   harm  

caused   or   revealed   by   criminal   behaviour.   It   is   a   process   of   resolving   crime   by  
focusing  on  redressing  the  harm  done  to  the  victim.  

AIMS  OF  RESTORATIVE  JUSTICE    

• Heals  victims’  wounds  

• Restores  offenders  to  law  abiding  lives  

 • Repairs  harm  done  in  inter  personal  relationships  and  the  community  

• It   seeks   to   involve   all   stakeholders   and   provide   opportunities   for   those   most  
affected  by  the  crime  to  be  directly  involved  

EXAMPLES  OF  RESTORATIVE  JUSTICE  PROGRAMS  

1. Victim/  offender  mediation  

2. Family  group  conferencing  

3. Sentencing  circles  

4. Consensus  based  decision  making  

5. Victim/offender  reconciliation  Panels.  

AT  WHAT  STAGE  CAN  INTERVENTION  BE  MADE  

1. Police  investigation  

2. Prosecution  level  

3. Court  level  

4. Sentencing  level  

NOTE-­S.347-­348   ACJL-­   introduction   of   community   service   as   a   form   of   punishment   for  

convicted  offenders  who  have  been  tried  summarily  in  lieu  of  sentence  or  fine.  

Note:   Practice  Direction  in  High  Ct  in  FCT:  issued  by  Chief  Judge  of  the  FCT  on  1st  July  2014:  
Homicide,   Armed   Robbery,   Kidnapping,   Rape,   Corruption,   Money   Laundering   and   such  
other   offences   as   the   Chief   Judge   may   from   time   to   time   specify.   It   states   that   where   the  
application  for  leave  to  prefer  a  charge  is  to  be  made  before  the  CT,  the  accused  must  be  
present   before   the   Court   (prior   to   this,   it   was   made   ex   parte).   Even   where   the   accused  
person   is   in   Court,   he   cannot   comment   on   the   nature   of   the   application,   the   application   for  
leave   must   be   accompanied   by   an   affidavit   stating   that   all   the   investigation   into   the   matter  
has  been  conducted.  Prosecutor  must  also  state  that  all  witnesses  are  ready  and  available  
to  testify  and  he  is  ready  to  commence  trial.  Provision  for  pre-­‐hearing  protocols  so  where  
leave  is  granted  and  after  arraignment,  cases  to  be  set  down  for  pre-­‐trial  hearing  within  14  
days.  Within  7  days  of  the  last  pre-­‐trial  hearing,  the  CT  shall  give  judgment  on  all  pre-­‐trial  
issues.  No  application  to  be  made  at  the  pre-­‐trial  stage  shall  be  taken  at  the  trial.  At  the  end  
of  the  pre-­‐trial,  the  CT  may  issue  directives  as  to  the  number  of  witnesses  to  be  called,  time  
for  each  party  to  present  their  case,  expected  duration  of  time  and  such  other  orders  which  
in  the  opinion  of  the  judge  may  facilitate  expeditious  dispensation  of  the  matter  
Practice  Direction  of  the  Federal  High  Court  2013:  in  respect  of  the  same  offences  but  no  
provision  for  pre-­‐trial  protocols.  The  offences  of  Terrorism,  Kidnapping,  Trafficking  in  
persons,  Rape,  corruption,  money  laundering    

See  class  exercise    

Ama  Kweku:  should  have  recorded  not  guilty  since  it  is  a  murder  charge    
Issue  of  jurisdiction  to  try  a  non-­‐Nigerian.    
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
Week  14:  Trial  2:  Trial  Preparation  and  Evidence  
What  is  case  theory?    
What  is  trial  plan?    
Need  and  purpose  of  case  theory/trial  plan  
Are  you  the  prosecution  or  defence  counsel?  
Nature  of  the  case  or  defence  
Note   the   implication   of   the   FCT   Practice   Direction   2014   and   the   FHC   Practice  
Direction  2013  on  trial  plan  
Pre-­trial  and  trial  plan  
Filing  of  charges/bail  application    
 
A-­TRIAL  PREPARATION  
CASE  THEORY  
Case  theory  refers  to  the  possible  line  of  argument  to  be  presented  to  the  court.  
The  theory  of  the  case  is  the  most  plausible  explanation  a  party  can  adduce  in  his  favour  to  
meet  a  set  of  facts.  
 
FACTORS  INFLUENCING  A  GOOD  CASE  THEORY  
i.   What  is  the  charge  against  the  accused?  
ii.   What  are  the  ingredients  having  regard  to  the  statute  creating  the  offence?  
iii.   What  are  the  facts  available  to  prove  this  offence?  
iv.   What  are  the  basic  principles  guiding  this  offence?  
v.   Are  there  likely  defences  available  to  the  accused  in  this  case?  
vi.  Processes  to  ensure  reluctant  witnesses  attend  court  
 
NB:  Do  not  worry  about  the  weaknesses  in  your  case;  rather  trivialize  them  and  allow  your  
opponent  to  worry  about  them.  
Defence  counsel    
• Interview  client  when  client  is  charged  
• From  these  facts  given  by  client,  it  will  indicate  likely  defences  of  your  client  
• Don’t   rely   on   evidence   from   client   alone.   See   the   IPO   (investigating   police   officer)   to  
know  lapses  of  investigation  process  e.g.  no  due  process  followed  (beating  the  client  
in  the  name  of  police  interview)  
• NB:  no  two  cases  are  the  same  
 
These   practice   Directions   have   the   objective   of   speeding   up   processes   of   cases.   They  
emphasise  thorough  preparation  as  adjournments  may  not  be  granted  willingly.  
Practice   Direction   of   the   High   Ct   FCT:  Rule  4  states  that  (affect  theory  of  case  and  trial  
plan):   Duties   of   the   prosecution   and   defence   –   the   prosecution   shall   serve   copies   of   the  
statement  of  the  offence  and  documentary  evidence  7  days  before  the  trial.  See  other  duties  
of  the  defence.  
For   criminal   cases,   pre-­‐hearing   protocol   in   the   FCT.   It   refers   to   the   number   of   witnesses,  
time   allowed   by   each   party,   specific   date   and   time   for   hearing,   expected   duration   of   trial  
and   when   judgement   is   expected.     Thus   trial   plan   must   include   witnesses   and   evidence  
(must  be  in  writing  and  serve  on  the  opposite  party).    
These   Practice   Directions   refer   to   certain   crimes   –   see   the   Practice   Directions.   NB-­‐   such  
other  cases  as  the  Chief  Judge  may  from  time  to  time  specify    
 
TRIAL  PLAN:    
Trial  plan  is  an  action  plan  prepared  by  a  counsel  showing  how  he  intends  to  prove  his  case  
or  establish  his  defence.  
 
HOW  TO  DEVELOP  A  TRIAL  PLAN  FOR  A  PROSECUTION  COUNSEL  
STAGE  ONE-­  
• Examine  the  charge  sheet  
• The  law  under  which  the  charge  is  brought  
• List  of  witnesses  
• Proof  of  evidence  
• Exhibits  and  documents  to  be  tendered  
STAGE  TWO-­  
• Outline  the  ingredients  of  the  offence      
• See  whether  what  you  have  in  the  proof  of  evidence  is  enough  to  sustain  the  charge.  
STAGE  THREE-­‐Identify  the  possible  defences  of  your  opponent  
STAGE  FOUR-­‐Draw   up   the   questions   you   intend   to   ask   in   proof   of   your   case   and   questions  
to  ask  in  cross  examination  
STAGE  FIVE-­‐Identify  and  study  the  case  law  and  statute  you  may  use  in  court.  
STAGE  SIX-­‐Plan  your  fall  back  options  
STAGE  SEVEN-­Hold  pre  trial  chambers  meeting.  
Preparation  of  witnesses  for  trial    

• Pre-­‐trial  briefing    
• Note  that  briefing  or  prepping  is  not  the  same  as  pre-­‐trial  coaching  
• E.g.  of  pre-­‐trial  briefing  include:  take  witnesses  to  court  to  witness  an  actual  trial;  
enlighten  the  witness  that  the  court  is  there  to  protect  them  e.g.  opposite  counsel  
will  not  be  allowed  to  badger  them  or  abuse  them    

• Note:  (preparing  the  IPO  as  witness)  -­‐  the  service  number  and  rank  of  police  officer  
are  relevant  as  introductory  issues  in  examination  in  chief.  IPO  to  state  how  the  
report  by  Mrs  Agbo  was  made  and  interviewing  her.  Did  he  arrest  anyone  and  take  
their  statements  and  how  the  statements  were  taken  (i.e.  no  torture).  The  report  of  
the  identification  parade  and  how  it  will  be  introduced  in  court.  Exhibit  keeper  will  
have  assigned  a  number  to  the  bike  recovered  –  so  IPO  has  to  explain  the  chain  of  
custody  (where  was  the  bike  recovered,  who  did  he  hand  it  over  to,  what  is  the  
assigned  number  to  the  bike).  In  his  investigation,  bank  would  have  given  the  IPO  a  
statement  of  account  and  this  would  form  part  of  the  evidence  
 
 
Trial  Plan  (Ene  Agbo  scenario):  Prosecution’s  trial  plan  

Charge  

• Robbery  
• Theft  
• Conspiracy  
  
Law  under  which  the  charge  is  brought    

• Section  296  Penal  Code  for  robbery  

• Section  286  Penal  Code  for  theft  
• Section  97(1)  Conspiracy  
 

Evidence  of  Elements  of  the  offence  

• Testimony  of  Mrs  Ene  Agbo    
• Result  of  the  identification  parade  
• The  bike  that  was  used  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  
• To  use  the  video,  must  lay  down  the  proper  foundation  for  admissibility    
• Testimony  of  the  clerk    
 
Documents  to  be  relied  on  

• Bank  teller  showing  the  withdrawal  of  money  

• Account  statement  
 
Challenges/weaknesses  of  case  
• No  eye  witness  testimony  
 
Penalty  

• 21years  
• Up  to  5yrs  imprisonment  
 
The  prayers    
• Conviction  on  all  charges  
 
Defence’s  trial  plan  
• No  eye  witnesses  at  the  scene  of  the  crime    
• Defence  of  alibi  –  produce  the  witnesses  to  the  Jollywell  Hotel,  Wuse.  Testimony  of  
the  accused  persons  and  witnesses    
• Due  process  not  followed  –  identification  parade  requires  a  minimum  of  8  people  for  
1  suspect  and  12  people  for  2  suspects  of  the  same  physical  build  
• Stating  that  the  bike  doesn’t  belong  to  the  defendant  
 
Documents  to  file  
 • Defendant’s  statement  made  at  the  police  station  when  they  were  arrested  
 
Prayers  
• Acquit  the  defendants  on  all  charges  
EVIDENTIAL  ISSUES  
Burden  of  proof:  Obligation  of  the  party  to  adduce  evidence  or  to  prove  a  case.  It  is  the  
person’s  obligation  to  do  something.  Legal  burden  and  evidential  burden.  The  legal  burden  
of  proof  is  on  the  prosecution.  It  never  shifts.  It  is  static.  Standard  of  proof:  duty  of  a  party  
to  prove  a  case  by  producing  the  quantum  of  evidence  required  by  law.  

A-­BURDEN  OF  PROOF    

The  burden  of  proof  in  a  case  may  be  either:    
a.  General  burden  of  proof/  Legal  Burden  of  Proof;  or    
b.  Evidential  burden  of  proof    
GENERAL  BURDEN  OF  PROOF  
The  general  burden  of  proof  in  a  criminal  matter  is  on  the  prosecution.  Prosecution’s  duty  
to   establish/proof   the   ingredients   of   the   offence.   Prosecution   must   discharge   this   legal  
burden  and  it  is  fixed  by  law  (Constitution,  CPL,  CPCL,  ACJL)  
 
S.  135(3)  of  the  Evidence  Act  2011:  If  the  prosecution  proves  the  commission  of  a  crime  
beyond  reasonable  doubt,  the  burden  of  proving  reasonable  doubt  is  shifted  on  to  the  
defendant.  

SECTION  36(5)  CFRN  1999:  Every  person  who  is  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  
presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty  

SECTION  135(2)  EVIDENCE  ACT  2011(he  who  asserts  must  prove).  

WOOLMINGTON  v.  DPP  
Sections   132,   s135(2)   Evidence   Act   shows   that   the   burden   of   proof   is   static.   S135(2):  
whenever   a   commission   of   crime   is   in   issue   in   any   case,   the   burden   of   proof   is   on   the   party  
who   alleges   the   crime.   Right   to   silence.   It   is   not   for   the   accused   to   prove   his   innocence:  
s36(5)  Constitution.  Failure  of  accused  to  testify  does  not  imply  guilt:  Mbele   v   The   State  
(1990).  The  prosecution  shall  prove  the  ingredients  of  the  offence.  Accused  not  bound  to  
prove  his  innocence  i.e.  not  compelled  to  give  evidence  in  his  trial  (s36(11)  Constitution).  
Habibu  Musa  v  The  State  (2013)  9  NWLR  (Pt.  1359)  214  
 
SHIFT  OF  BURDEN  OF  PROOF  TO  THE  ACCUSED  PERSON  (evidential  burden)  
The  burden  of  proof  in  criminal  cases  rests  on  the  prosecution  and  that  burden  never  shifts.  
 
However,  S.   36   (5)   CFRN  recognises  the  fact  that  any  law  may  impose  on  the  accused  the  
burden   of   proving   particular   facts.     Such   burden   may   be   found   in   SS.   139,   140,   141  
Evidence  Act.  The   obligation   of   a   party   to   produce   evidence   to   establish   a   particular   issue  
or  matter  in  a  case.  The  evidential  burden  may  shift.  Evidential  burden  is  similar  to  that  in  
civil  case  –  he  who  assert,  must  prove.  
 
a.   Burden  of  Proving  Reasonable  Doubt  
If   the   Prosecution   proves   the   commission   of   a   crime   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   the   defence  
may  adduce  evidence  at  the  close  of  the  Prosecution’s  case  to  enable  it  raise  some  doubts  in  
the  mind  of  the  court  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  accused:  Section  135  (3)  Evidence  Act  2011  
 
When  accused  has  the  burden  of  proof  
b.   Burden  to  Prove  Exemption,  Exception  or  Qualification  in  statutes:  s141  EA  
 JOHNSON  v.  COP.  
c.   Facts  peculiarly  within  the  knowledge  of  the  Accused:  
Section  140  Evidence  Act;  
Otti  v.  Police  (illegal  moneylender)  
Rahman  v.  COP  (case  of  a  pilot)  
d.   Defence  of  Intoxication  and  Insanity  
Section  139  (3)(c):  presumption  of  sanity;  S.  27  Criminal  Code  
e.  Special  plea  of  autre  fois  acquit  and  autre  fois  convict  
f.   Burden   imposed   by   statute   e.g.   if   a   person   is   arrested   with   substances   suspected   to   be  
cannabis   and   the   accused   states   he   has   the   licence   (e.g.   works   for   a   drug   manufacturing  
company),   the   person   must   show   by   evidence   the   licence   and   that   he   is   working   for   the  
company.    
 
DISCHARGE  OF  EVIDENTIAL  BURDEN  OF  PROOF  
The   burden   of   proof   placed   on   the   defendant   may   be   discharged   by   evidence   from  
prosecution  or  the  defence:  s139(2)  EA  
 
Thus,   the   evidential   burden   of   proof   placed   on   the   defence/accused   above   can   be  
discharged  either  by:  
1. Direct  evidence  of  the  prosecution  
2. Indirect   evidence   from   the   cross-­‐examination   of   the   Prosecution’s   witnesses-­‐S.  
139(2)  of  the  E.A  
 
 
B-­STANDARD  OF  PROOF  REQUIRED  IN  CRIMINAL  MATTERS    
• Standard   of   proof   is   the   quality   or   quantity   of   evidence   required   to   convince   the  
Court   of   facts   asserted   in   the   matter.   The   standard   of   proof   required   is   beyond  
reasonable  doubt:  S.135  (1)  of  the  Evidence  Act.    
 • The   above   does   not   however   mean   it   is   beyond   a   shadow   of   doubt-­‐BAKARE   VS.  
STATE;  MILLER  v.  MINISTER  OF  PENSIONS;  
• Failure  of  accused  to  explain  certain  facts  within  his  knowledge  is  not  a  valid  ground  
for   holding   that   the   case   was   not   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt.   IGABELE   V.  
STATE  
• Whenever   there   is   any   doubt,   the   accused   person   is   made   to   take   benefit   of   the  
doubt-­‐ABDULLAHI  v.  STATE,    
• If  the  standard  stipulated  by  the  law  in  proof  of  a  particular  case  or  claim  is  not  met,  
it  is  said  that  the  burden  placed  on  the  party  has  not  been  discharged.  
• However,   the   standard   of   proof   of   criminal   defences   or   exemptions   etc   is   on   the  
balance  of  probabilities:  s137  EA  
Admissibility  of  evidence  
• Admissibility  is  the  same  as  the  reception  or  receivability  of  evidence  in  court  
• Evidence   must   be   relevant   to   be   admissible   but   not   every   relevant   evidence   is  
admissible  
• Evidence  must  satisfy  any  condition  stipulated  by  the  Evidence  Act  before  it  can  be  
admissible  
• Improperly  obtained  evidence  is  admissible  it  if  its  relevant:  s14  EA    
• However,  a  court  may  exclude  improperly  obtained  evidence  where  the  “court  is  of  
the   opinion   that   the   desirability   of   admitting   the   evidence   is   out-­‐weighed   by   the  
undesirability  of  admitting  evidence”:  s14  EA  
• S15   EA:   factors   guiding   the   court   in   determining   whether   or   not   to   admit  
improperly  obtained  evidence.    
• Section  15  EA:  For  the  purposes  of  section  14,  the  matters  that  the  court  shall  take  
into  account  include—  

(a)  the  probative  value  of  the  evidence;  

(b)  the  importance  of  the  evidence  in  the  proceeding;  

(c)  the  nature  of  the  relevant  offence,  cause  of  action  or  defence  and  the  nature  of  
the  subject-­‐matter  of  the  proceeding;  

(d)the  gravity  of  the  impropriety  or  contravention;
  

(e)whether  the  impropriety  or  contravention  was  deliberate  or  reckless;  

(f)whether  any  other  proceeding  (whether  or  not  in  a  court)  has  been  or  is  likely  to  
 be  taken  in  relation  to  the  impropriety  or  contravention;  and  

(g)the  difficulty,  if  any,  of  obtaining  the  evidence  without  impropriety  or  
contravention  of  law.  

COMPETENCE  OF  WITNESSES  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS    

Competence   means   the   ability   of   a   person   to   give   evidence   in   Court   while   compellability   is  
the  authority  of  the  court  to  compel  a  person  to  testify.  Compellability  is  the  obligation  of  a  
person  to  attend  and  give  evidence  when  commanded  by  a  court  by  subpoena  or  witness  
summons.    

The  general  rule  is  that  all  persons  are  competent  to  testify  EXCEPT  they  are:    

a. Prevented  from  understanding  the  questions  put  to  them,  or    

b. Prevented   from   giving   rational   answer   by   reason   of   extreme   old   age,   tender  
years,  disease  whether  of  the  body  or  mind  or  any  other  cause  of  the  same  kind:  
s175(1)  EA  
For   the   court   to   determine   whether   a   person   is   competent   or   not.   Competence   is   not   a  
matte   of   age   but   intellectual   capacity   –   stated   by   Supreme   CT   in   Onyegbu   v   The   State  
(1995).  
Note   that   a   person   of   unsound   mind   may   testify   during   lucid   intervals:   s175(2)   EA  
A  dumb  person  may  testify  by  sign  or  in  writing  made  in  open  court:  s176  EA  
COMPETENT  WITNESSES  
1. All  accused  persons  (Defence)  
S.  180  of  the  Evidence  Act  
2.  A  convict-­‐R.  V.  ONYUIKE    

IBRAHIM  V.  THESTATE  

3. Person  of  unsound  mind  or  drunkards.  They  can  give  evidence  during  their  lucid  
intervals.    

4. Deaf  and  dumb  witness-­‐S.  176  of  the  Evidence  Act  

5. A  co  accused  is  a  competent  witness  for  the  defence  but  not  a  competent  witness  for  
the  prosecution    EXCEPT  when  
i. Tried  separately;  and  
ii.  Acquitted  or  
iii.  Convicted  and  sentenced  or    
iv. Discharged  on  a  nolle  prosequi  or    
v. Pleaded  guilty  and  convicted(R.  v.  AKPAN)  
 
 A   co-­‐accused   person   may,   while   testifying   in   his   own   behalf   incriminate   his   co-­‐
accused  person.      
• Such  incriminating  evidence  may  be  utilised  by  the  court  to  convict  either  or  both  
of  them  
 Ajani  v.  R-­‐  
S.  198  of  the  Evidence  Act.    
 
6. Spouses  of  a  valid  marriage  
S.  179  and  258  of  the  Evidence  Act.  
• This  is  applicable  to  valid  marriages  under  Islamic  Law,  customary  Law  and  the  
Act.  
• A  spouse  is  competent  and  compellable  witness  for  the  accused  
• Generally,   spouses   of   a   valid   marriage   are   not   competent   witnesses   for   the  
prosecution   where   one   spouse   is   standing   trial   UNLESS   in   the   following  
circumstances.  
i.   Where   the   offence   for   which   the   spouse   is   standing   trial   relates   to   any   of   those  
mentioned  in  S.  182  (1)(a)  EA  (i.e.  sex  –  related  offences)  
ii.   In  relation  to  an  offence  against  the  property  of  the  Husband  or  wife,  subject  to  the  
provisions  of  S.  36  Criminal  Code  S.  182  (1)(b)  EA  
iii.   Where   the   husband   or   wife   is   charged   with   the   offence   of   inflicting   violence   on   his  
wife  or  husband-­‐S.  182(1)(c)  EA  
 
NB-­‐In   any   other   case,   the   husband   or   wife   is   only   a   competent   and   compellable   witness  
upon  the  application  of  the  spouse  charged  or  upon  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  spouses-­   S.  
182(2)   EA;   R.   V.   ADESHINA   (WIFE   TESTIFYING   IN   MURDER   CASE   WITHOUT  
CONSENT)  
 
NB   Every   woman   who   has   contracted   a   valid   marriage   shall   for   the   protection   and  
security   of   her   own   separate   property,   have   in   her   own   name   against   all   persons   including  
her  husband,  the  same  remedies  as  if  she  were  unmarried.    -­    S.  144  ACJL  
 
7. A   child   of   tender   age   (under   14yrs   old:   s209   EA,   s2   CPL,   s371   ACJL,   Solola   v  
The   State   (2005)):   .-­   Here   the   Court   is   to   investigate   if   the   child   sufficiently  
understands   the   questions   and   to   answer   them   rationally,   and   his   ability   to   know  
the   effect   of   telling   the   truth.   -­‐S.   175   of   the   Evidence   Act.   The   judge   will   ask  
preliminary  questions  that  are  not  related  to  the  matter  in  controversy  to  the  child.  
From   the   answers   to   those   questions,   the   judge   will   decide   whether   the   child   is  
possessed   of   sufficient   understanding.   Issue   that   if   the   court   does   not   record   the  
details  of  the  preliminary  questions  and  answers,  is  the  evidence  is  null?  Supreme  
CT   said   ‘NO’   provided   that   preliminary   questions   were   asked   to   ensure   the   child  
was  of  sufficient  evidence.  Note:  defence  must  raise  objection  that  preliminary  test  
must  be  taken,  if  not  he  will  not  be  heard  on  appeal  to  complain.  Where  CT  does  not  
conduct   preliminary   test,   the   evidence   is   inadmissible:   Agenu  v  State  (1992).   Case  
law   on   sections   s175(1)   and   209(1)   is   needed   to   clarify   if   section   209(1)   has  
 changed   the   law   as   the   language   of   s182(1)   EA   2004   (which   had   both   sworn   and  
unsworn  evidence  of  a  child)  

See  the  slide  of  Dagayya  v  The  State  (2006):  where  child  gives  sworn  evidence,  his  
evidence  requires  no  corroboration.  Where  child  gives  unsworn  evidence,  his  evidence  
must  of  necessity  be  corroborated    

• A  child  under  14  years  of  age  must  give  unsworn  evidence  needing  corroboration.  
-­  S.  209(3)  of  the  Evidence  Act.  Evidence  of  child  under  14yrs  must  be  taken  
otherwise  than  under  oath  or  affirmation    

• A  child  of  14  years  and  above  can  give  sworn  evidence  which  will  need  no  
corroboration  but  the  Court  will  caution  itself  if  it  decides  to  convict  on  it.    

• Counsel  as  witness  for  client:  counsel  is  competent  but  ought  to  withdraw  as  
counsel  if  he  is  likely  to  be  a  witness:  Elabanjo  v  Tijani  (1986)  5  NWLR  (Pt.  46)  
952.  Imagine  the  difficulties  counsel  may  face  if  he  has  to  continue  with  the  case  
after  his  credibility  is  questioned  under  cross  examination  

Tainted  witness:  Tainted  witness  not  an  accomplice  but  may  be  a  witness  who  has  a  
purpose  of  his  own  to  serve:  Mbenu  v  State  (1988)  
E.g.  witnesses  with  criminal  connections  who  may  want  to  rope  in  another  person  so  they  
receive  a  lesser  sentence  and  claimants  to  the  property  of  deceased  person:  Ali  v  The  State  
(2009)  

Evidence  of  relations  of  accused  or  victim:  Such  witnesses  are  competent  but  their  
evidence  should  be  scrutinised  with  caution    
COMPELLABILITY  OF  WITNESSES    
This  means  to  put  a  witness  under  a  legal  obligation  to  give  evidence.      
The  general  rule  is  that  all  witnesses  can  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  in  Court.    
EXCEPTIONS    

• Judges  or  judicial  officers  as  to  matters  within  their  capacity  as  a  judge.  He  may  be  
examined  as  to  other  matters.  –    
S.  188  of  the  Evidence  Act    
ELEBANJO  VS.TIJANI.    
• Legal   practitioners,   Court   interpreters   or   Clerks   of   Legal   Practitioners   in   official  
capacity.  -­  S.  192  and  S.  193  of  the  Evidence  Act.  Except  with  EXPRESS  CONSENT    
• Information  in  respect  to  the  commission  of  offence  received  by  prosecutors  or  the  
Police.    
• An   accused   person   not   a   compellable   witness   for   the   defence-­S.36(11)   CFRN.   As  
witness   for   the   prosecution   (Umole   v   IGP:   held  that  accused  can  testify  against  
co-­‐accused  when  the  former  had  pleaded  guilty  and  convicted  before  being  called  by  
the  prosecution:  can  be  compellable  at  this  stage)  
 • Evidence  as  to  the  affairs  of  a  State  unpublished.  -­‐S.  190  of  the  Evidence  Act.    
• Official  communication  by  public  officers  
-­‐S.  191  of  the  Evidence  Act.    
• The   President   and   Vice   President   of   Nigeria;   and   the   Governors   and   Deputy-­
Governors   of   the   States.  S.   308(1)(c)   of   the   1999   Constitution   are   competent  
but  not  compellable  witnesses  
TINUBU  V.  IMB  SECURITIES    
ISHOLA  NOAH  VS.BRITISH  HIGH  COMMISSIONER  (except  election  matters)  
• Diplomatic   agents   and   convoy.   S.   2   of   the   Diplomatic   Immunities   and  
Privileges  Act  
• Diplomats   and   members   of   diplomatic   missions   including   foreign   envoys.  
Consular   officers  and  members   of   their   families   and  staff  (and  members  of  the  
family   of   the   officer   staff)   are   immune   from   all   legal   process   S.   1(1)   Diplomatic  
Immunities  and  Privileges  Act.    
• NB-­‐Zabuski  v.  Israeli  Aircraft  Industries-­‐It  was  held  that  the  provisions  of  S.  1(1)  
DIPA,  only  make  Diplomats  un-­‐compellable  but  they  are  competent  witnesses  if  they  
desire  to  waive  the  immunity:  S.  2,  4  and  15  DIPA.  
• What  of  Nigerian  working  in  an  embassy  or  a  Nigerian  working  for  the  UN  in  Nigeria  
(see  Ishola  case)  
WITNESSES  
There  are  generally  three  methods  of  securing  attendance  of  a  witness  in  court  
a.   Witness  summons  
b.   Subpoena  
c.   Warrant  
 
WITNESS  SUMMONS  
This  is  an  order   of   court   issued  to  a  person  whose  presence  is  required  for  purposes  of  
testifying  in  a  manner  before  the  court.  It  is  used  in  the  magistrates’  courts.  However,  it  is  
not  expressly  prohibited  to  be  used  in  the  High  Court.  
 
PROCEDURE  
a.   The  party  desirous  to  call  a  witness  (who  may  be  unwilling  to  come  would  apply  to  
the  Registrar  of  the  court  to  issue  summon  upon  payment  of  the  requisite  fees.  
b.   The  witness  summons  is  served  on  the  witness  personally  unless  where  leave  of  court  
is  granted  to  serve  by  substituted  means  –  S.  187  CPL  
c.   Failure  to  obey  the  summons  will  be  regarded  as  contempt  of  court  -­‐S.  191  (a)CPL  
d.  A  person  so  served  may  refuse  to  attend  unless  his  travel  cost  is  paid  except  where  the  
Prosecutor  is  a  Law  officer.    S.  186  (2)  CPL  
 
SUBPOENA  
• This   is   the   commonest   method   by   which   the   attendance   of   a   witness   is   secured   in  
trials  before  the  High  Court.  
• In  Police  v.  Jane,  it  was  held  that  a  Magistrate  has  no  power  to  issue  a  subpoena.  
 • A  subpoena  is  a  writ  in  an  action  requiring  the  person  to  whom  it  is  directed  to  be  
present   at   a   specified   place   and   time   for   a   specific   purpose   under   a   penalty   under  
the  law-­‐Morrison  Ind.  Plc  v.  Makinde.  
 
TYPES  OF  SUBPOENA  
a.   Subpoena   ad   testificandum:     This   is   for   the   purpose   of   compelling   a   witness   to  
attend  court  and  give  evidence:  Form  40  FCT  
b.   Subpoena  duces  tecum:    This  is  used  to  compel  a  witness  to  come  to  court  or  before  
an   Examiner   or   Referee   to   give   evidence   and   also   to   bring   with   him/her   certain  
document  in  his/her  possession  specified  in  the  subpoena:  Form  42  FCT  
c.  Habeas  corpus  ad  testificandum:  Form  41  FCT  –  writ  directed  at  the  controller  of  Prisons  
directing   the   person   to   produce   that   person   to   court   at   the   named   date   or   days   to  
testify  and  give  evidence  
PROCEDURE  
i.   Application  is  made  by  the  party  who  requires  it  to  the  Registrar  upon  payment  of  
the  requisite  fees.  
ii.   It  is  also  served  on  the  witness  personally.  
iii.   Failure  to  obey  a  subpoena  would  make  the  court  to  issue  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  
the  person  whose  attendance  is  so  required  unless  the  person  has  applied  to  have  same  set  
aside.  
 
WARRANT  
• This  is  not  a  means  of  securing  attendance  of  a  witness  in  court  at  first  instance.    It  is  
usually  issued  after  a  witness  summons  has  been  disobeyed-­‐S.  188  CPL  
• However,   where   the   court   is   satisfied   upon   oath   that   the   person   is   likely   to   give  
material  evidence  but  that  he  would  not  attend  court  unless  he  is  compelled  to  do  
so;  the  court  may  use  warrant  at  the  first  instance.-­‐S.  189  CPL  
• In  criminal  trials,  there  is  generally  no  required  number  of  witnesses  to  call  to  prove  
a  case.    
• Evidence   of   one   witness   which   is   credible   would   prove   the   most   heinous   crime:  
Section  200  EA  2011  
 
All  that  is  required  is  for  the  Prosecution  to  prove  the  case  against  the  accused  beyond  
reasonable  doubt.  
 
However,   where   the   Prosecutor   fails   to   call   an   eyewitness   or   material   witness,   the   court  
may   reasonable   infer   that   if   the   witness   had   been   called,   his   testimony   would   have   been  
favourable  to  the  accused  person.  OGBODU  V.  THE  STATE  
 
A  prosecutor  must  not  call  all  eyewitnesses  to  testify-­‐  
ALLI  &  ANOR  V.  THE  STATE;    
ADAJE  V.  STATE.  
 
CORROBORATION  
Corroboration  means  confirmation  of  a  piece  of  evidence  by  another  independent  evidence.  
As   a   general   rule,   corroboration   is   not   required   to   prove   the   guilt.   Person   can   be   convicted  
based  on  the  evidence  of  a  single  credible  witness:  s200  EA  
In  all  the  situations,  where  the  law  of  Evidence  requires  corroboration,  the  Prosecution  will  
require   the   testimony   of   at   least   two   witnesses   to   secure   a   conviction-­‐   Corroboration  
may   be   required   as   a   matter   of   law   or   as   a   matter   of   practice.   The   nature   of   the  
corroborative  evidence  will  vary  from  one  case  to  another  
The  circumstances  are  as  follows:  
 
a.   WITNESSES  
The  testimony  of  the  following  persons  as  witnesses  require  corroboration.  
i.   Testimony  of  an  accomplice  S.  198(1)  EA.  An  accomplice  is  any  person  who  
pursuant  to  section  7  of  the  Criminal  Code  may  be  deemed  to  have  taken  part  in  
committing  the  offence  as  the  defendant  or  is  an  accessory  after  the  fact  to  the  offence,  or  a  
receiver  of  stolen  goods  (s198(2)  EA):  Mohammed  v  State.  A  co-­‐accused  is  not  an  
accomplice,  a  court  must  warn  herself  that  it  is  unsafe  to  convict  based  upon  the  evidence  
of  a  co-­‐accused    

ii.   The  unsworn  testimony  of  children  S.  209(3)  EA  

iii.   The  testimony  of  a  tainted  witness  
 
b.  OFFENCES  
An  accused  person  can  only  be  convicted  of  any  of  the  following  offences  upon  his  plea  of  
guilty   or   on   the   evidence   of   at   least   two   witnesses;   one   corroborating   the   testimony   of  
another.  
 
Such  offences  are:  
i.   Treason  and  Treasonable  felony  
 S.  201(1)  EA;  R.  v.  Omisade  
NB  ==#    However,  S.    
201   (2)   EA   provides   that   on   a   charge   of   treasonable   felony,   the   court   can   convict   on   the  
testimony   of   one   witness   where   the   treason   alleged   is   the   killing   of   the   President   or   an  
attempt  to  endanger  his  life  or  injure  his  person.  
ii.   Perjury  or  for  counseling  or  procuring  Evidence  on  charge  of  the  commission  of  
perjury:  S.  202  EA  

iii.   Exceeding  Speed  Limit  S.  203(1)  EA:  Exception  -­  “Provided  that  the  evidence  of  a  
duly  authorised  officer  of  the  relevant  authority  who  was  at  time  of  the  commission  of  the  
offence  operating  any  mechanical,  electronic  or  other  device  for  the  recording  of  the  speed  
of  a  moving  vehicle,  the  record  of  such  device  being  additionally  tendered  in  evidence  
against,  the  defendant,  shall  not  require  further  corroboration”  

iv.   Sedition  S.  204  EA,  S.  528  Criminal  Code  Act  
 
Effect  of  corroboration  
 • When  corroboration  is  required  as  a  matter  of  law,  failure  of  corroborative  evidence  
of  a  crucial  witness  may  nullify  a  conviction  and  sentence.    
• Where  corroboration  is  not  required  by  law  but  a  court  did  not  warn  herself  as  to  
the  need  for  corroboration,  the  effect  would  depend  upon  the  quality  of  testimony  of  
the  single  witness  
 
NB  =EXAMS-­‐  
Sexual  offences  S.  179  (5)  Old  Evidence  Act  2004  
SS  218,  221,  223  and  224  CC.      
This  was  completely  omitted  in  the  New  Evidence  Act  meaning  the  requirement  has  been  
abolished  under  the  E.A.  
 
Computer  generated  evidence  
• S84  EA    
• Kubor  v  Dickson  
• Need  for  foundation  as  to  the  identity  and  operation  of  the  computer  at  the  relevant  
period  
• Certificate  of  compliance    
Section  84  EA  2011  
• Section  84(2)(a)  that  the  document  containing  the  statement  was  produced  by  the  
computer  during  a  period  over  which  the  computer  was  used  regularly  to  store  or  
process  information  for  the  purposes  of  any  activities  regularly  carried  on  over  that  
period,  whether  for  profit  or  not,  by  anybody,  whether  corporate  or  not,  or  by  any  
individual;  

• (b)  that  over  that  period  there  was  regularly  supplied  to  the  computer  in  the  
ordinary  course  of  those  activities  information  of  the  kind  contained  in  the  
statement  or  of  the  kind  from  which  the  information  so  contained  is  derived;  

• (c)  that  throughout  the  material  part  of  that  period  the  computer  was  operating  
properly  or,  if  not,  that  in  any  respect  in  which  it  was  not  operating  properly  or  was  
out  of  operation  during  that  part  of  that  period  was  not  such  as  to  affect  the  
production  of  the  document  or  the  accuracy  of  its  contents;  and  

• (d)that  the  information  contained  in  the  statement  reproduces  or  is  derived  from  
information  supplied  to  the  computer  in  the  ordinary  course  of  those  activities.  

• Section  84(3):  Where  over  a  period  the  function  of  storing  or  processing  
information  for  the  purposes  of  any  activities  regularly  carried  on  over  that  period  
as  mentioned  in  subsection  (2)  (a)  of  this  section  was  regularly  performed  by  
computers,  whether—  

• (a)  by  a  combination  of  computers  operating  over  that  period;
(b)  by  different  
computers  operating  in  succession  over  that  period;  
 • (c)  by  different  combinations  of  computers  operating  in  succession  over  that  period;  
or  

• (d)  in  any  other  manner  involving  the  successive  operation  over  that  period,  in  
whatever  order,  of  one  or  more  computers  and  one  or  more  combinations  of  
computers,  

• all  the  computers  used  for  that  purpose  during  that  period  shall  be  treated  for  the  
purposes  of  this  section  as  constituting  a  single  computer;  and  references  in  this  
section  to  a  computer  shall  be  construed  accordingly.  

• Section  84(4)  In  any  proceeding  where  it  is  desired  to  give  a  statement  in  evidence  
by  virtue  of  this  section,  a  certificate  —  

• (a)  identifying  the  document  containing  the  statement  and  describing  the  manner  in  
which  it  was  produced;  

• (b)  giving  such  particulars  of  any  device  involved  in  the  production  of  that  
document  as  may  be  appropriate  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  document  was  
produced  by  a  computer.  

• (i)  dealing  with  any  of  the  matters  to  which  the  conditions  mentioned  in  subsection  
(2)  above  relate,  and  purporting  to  be  signed  by  a  person  occupying  a  responsible  
position  in  relation  to  the  operation  of  the  relevant  device  or  the  management  of  the  
relevant  activities,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall  be  evidence  of  the  matter  stated  in  the  
certificate;  and  for  

• the  purpose  of  this  subsection  it  shall  be  sufficient  for  a  matter  to  be  stated  to  the  
best  of  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  person  stating  it.  

• (5)  For  the  purposes  of  this  section—  

• (a)  information  shall  be  taken  to  be  supplied  to  a  computer  if  it  is  supplied  to  it  in  
any  appropriate  form  and  whether  it  is  supplied  directly  or  (with  or  without  human  
intervention)  by  means  of  any  appropriate  equipment;  

• (b)  where,  in  the  course  of  activities  carried  on  by  any  individual  or  body,  
information  is  supplied  with  a  view  to  its  being  stored  or  processed  for  the  purposes  
of  those  activities  by  a  computer  operated  otherwise  than  in  the  course  of  those  
activities,  that  information,  if  duly  supplied  to  that  computer,  shall  be  taken  to  be  
supplied  to  it  in  the  course  of  those  activities;  

• (c)  a  document  shall  be  taken  to  have  been  produced  by  a  computer  whether  it  was  
produced  by  it  directly  or  (with  or  without  human  intervention)  by  means  of  any  
appropriate  equipment.  

OATH  AND  AFFIRMATION  

Oath  taking  or  affirmation  by  a  witness  is  generally  mandatory.-­‐S.  205  EA  2011;  S.  229(1)  
CPCL,  S.  194  CPL  
 
CONSEQUENCES  OF  REFUSAL  TO  TESTIFY  ON  OATH  
NOTE(EXAMS)  
Under  the  CPL  (south):  refusal  to  testify  on  oath  or  affirmation  is  an  offence  punishable  by  
8  days  imprisonment.  
 
Under  the  CPCL,  Testifying  under   oath  or  affirmation   is  discretionary.  A  witness  shall  not  
be  compelled  to  testify  an  oath,  or  asked  the  reason  for  refusal.      
However,  the  court  shall  record  the  fact  of  refusal  and  any   reason   voluntarily  given.     S.  
230  CPCL  
 
Under   the   ACJL,   refusal   to   testify   under   oath   or   affirmation,   refusal   to   answer   any  
questions,  refusal  to  produce  any  document  without  sufficient  reason;  renders  one  liable  to  
be  committed  to  prison  for  a  period  up  to  8  days.-­  S.  190  (1)  ACJL  
 
WHEN  EVIDENCE  NOT  GIVEN  ON  OATH  MAY  BE  RECEIVED  
a.  Where  the  witness  is  not  a  believer  in  any  of  the  known  religions  or  is  a  person  whose  
religion  forbids  oath  taking  S.  208  EA  
NB-­‐where   however   an   oath   has   been   administered,   the   fact   that   the   person   to   whom   the  
oath  is  administered   has   no   religious  belief  would  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  oath:  S.  207  
EA.  
b.   EVIDENCE  OF  A  CHILD:  The   law   permits   the   reception   of   evidence/testimony   of   a   child  
who  does  not  understand  the  nature  and  implication  of  an  oath  provided  he  understand  the  
duty   of   telling   the   truth   in   addition   to   understanding   questions   put   to   him   and   giving  
rational  answers  to  such  questions.  S.  209  (1)  EA;    
S.  9  Oaths  Act    
DAGAYYA  V.  S  
 
NEW-­CAUTION  BEFORE  TESTIFYING  AN  OATH  
SECTION   206   Evidence   Act   2011   introduced   the   provision   calling   for   cautioning   a  
witness  before  he  gives  oral  evidence  on  oath.  
The  Court  or  the  Registrar  upon  the  court’s  direction  shall  caution  the  witness,  thus:  
You  ………….  (full  name)  are  hereby  cautioned  that  if  you  tell  a  lie  in  your  testimony  in  this  
proceeding  or  wilfully  mislead  this  court  you  are  liable  to  be  prosecuted  and  if  found  guilty  
you  will  be  seriously  dealt  with  according  to  law.  
 
ORDER  IN  WHICH  WITNESSES  ARE  CALLED  
S.  210  Evidence  Act  2011  provides  that  this  shall  be  regulated  by  the  Law  and  practice  for  
the  time  being  relating  criminal  procedure  or  in  absence  of  such  by  court’s  discretion.  
Since   it   is   the   duty   of   the   counsel   to   conduct   a   case,   the   number   of   witnesses   and   the   order  
in   which   to   call   them   has   remained   at   the   discretion   of   counsel.     But   he   should   adopt   a  
logical  order.  
  
OPENING  ADDRESS  
• Opening   statements,   opening   speech   or   opening   address   is   usually   called   for   in  
criminal  cases  before  the  jury  (NOT  USED  IN  NIGERIA).    
• Opening  address  is  made  after  the  conclusion  of  arraignment  
• For   prosecution:   contains   a   short   summary   of   the   facts   of   the   case:   s240   CPL,  
s189(1)  CPCL,  s268  ACJL  
• For  the  defence  would  be  a  brief  summary  of  the  defence’s  version  of  the  facts  
• Parties  normally  conclude  their  opening  address  that  they  are  ready  to  proceed  with  
the  case    
• Note   that   in   practice   the   opening   statements   may   consist   of   parties   informing   he  
court  that  they  are  ready  to  proceed  with  the  hearing    
• Note   Rule   4   High   Court   FCT   practice   Direction   2014   on   pre-­‐hearing   protocol   –  
matters   to   be   included   in   the   opening   statements   would   be   considered   in   the   pre-­‐
hearing  protocol  
• Rule  4  FHC  Practice  Direction  2013:  certain  duties  on  the  prosecution  and  defence  –  
to  inform  the  court  and  opposite  party,  the  number  of  witnesses  to  be  called  and  the  
likely  exhibits    
 
CONTENTS  OF  THE  OPENING  ADDRESS  (optional)  
-­‐S.240  CPL;  
189(1)  CPCL;  
268  ACJL  
a.   The  allegations  against  the  accused  and  the  law  contravened.  
b.   The  nature  of  evidence  available  to  prove  this.  
c.   The  witnesses  intended  to  be  called,  whether  and  when  they  would  be  available;  
d.   Where  possible  the  approximate  time  for  prosecution  to  complete  its  case.  
 
TIPS  ON  MAKING  AN  OPENING  ADDRESS  
i.   Opening  address  is  merely  an  outline  of  the  case  not  full  submissive.  
ii.   Use  good,  plain  and  simple  English.  
iii.   Give  a  most  rational  account  of  the  events.  
iv.   Develop  a  structure  for  the  speech.  
v.   References  should  not  be  made  to  inadmissible  evidence.  
vi.   Give  out  signposts  of  what  the  Judge  should  look  out  for  in  the  trial.  
vii.   Personal  opinions  should  not  be  reflected.  
 
Opening  address  for  the  Prosecution:  My  Lord,  the  accused  are  charged  with  the  
offences  of  theft,  robbery  and  criminal  conspiracy  contrary  to  Section  296  Penal  Code,  
Section  286  Penal  Code  and  Section  97(1)  Penal  Code  respectively.  The  Prosecution  will  
show  that  on  the  13th  day  of  December  2014,  the  accused  conspired  to  dispossess  the  
victim,  Mrs  Ene  Agbo  of  N20,000  by  forcefully  taking  the  money  from  her,  when  she  
boarded  a  bike  belonging  to  Burago  from  the  bank  to  Law  School.  The  Prosecution  will  
present  Mrs  Ene  Agbo  as  a  witness  and  tender  the  bike  used  in  the  robbery  as  evidence.  In  
addition,  the  bank  teller  and  account  balance  of  Mrs  Agbo  showing  the  withdrawal  of  
N20,000  will  be  tendered  as  evidence  for  the  Prosecution  as  well  as  the  testimony  of  the  
bank  clerk,  Mr  James  Ado  who  served  Miss  Agbo  on  the  day  she  withdrew  the  money.  
Opening  address  for  the  Defence:  My  Lord,  the  defence  will  show  that  the  accused  could  
not  have  committed  the  offence  as  stated  by  the  Prosecution.  Firstly,  the  accused  persons  
were  nowhere  near  the  scene  of  the  alleged  crime.  There  is  no  witness  to  corroborate  the  
testimony  of  Mrs  Ene  Agbo  and  given  the  flawed  nature  of  the  identification  parade  
producing  only  the  accused  persons  to  be  identified,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  Mrs  Agbo  
correctly  identified  the  accused  persons  as  the  perpetrators  of  the  crime.  Moreover,  the  
accused  persons  will  raise  the  defence  of  alibi  stating  that  they  were  with  friends  at  the  
Jollywell  Hotel  in  Wuse  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  crime.  The  friends,  Mr  Clement  Oni  and  
Miss  Chioma  Ego  will  be  called  as  witnesses  to  this  fact  as  well  as  the  bar  man,  Mr  Monday  
Ewe.  These  people  will  state  that  the  accused  persons  spent  the  entire  afternoon  from  
12pm  –  8pm  at  the  hotel  on  the  day  of  the  alleged  crime.    

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
WEEK  15-­TRIAL  3-­EXAMINATION  OF  WITNESSES  
No   particular   number   of   witnesses   required   to   prove   a   case:   Olabode   v   State.   However,  
note  the  instances  when  corroboration  is  required  e.g.  evidence  of  a  child  under  14yrs.  Also  
in  picking  witnesses,  only  pick  material  or  vital  witnesses  that  will  prove  the  case  for  the  
prosecution  or  the  defence.  
 
PREPARATION  OF  WITNESSES  FOR  TRIAL  
The  first  thing  a  Registrar  does  is  to  ask  all  witnesses  for  a  case  to  go  out  of  Court  and  of  
hearing.    
  
NB-­‐This  announcement  is  made  either  on  the  application  of  either  party  or  by  the  court  
suo  motu.  
S.  212  Evidence  Act,  
 S.  242  ACJL,  S.  285  CPL  
Requirement   for   ordering   witnesses   out   of   court   and   hearing   does   not   apply   to   parties  
themselves  or  their  respective  legal  advisers  even  if  they  will  be  called  as  witnesses:  s212  
Evidence  Act    
 
RATIONALE-­Such   that   witnesses   may   not   tailor   their   own   evidence   totally,   with   what  
other  witnesses  called  by  their  party  have  said  to  their  hearing.  
 
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  TO  ORDER  WITNESSES  OUT  OF  COURT  
• Failure  to  order  prospective  witnesses  out  of  court  and  out  of  hearing  does  not  
vitiate  the  proceedings  –  Proviso  to  s.  242  ACJL;  UWAEZUOKE  V.  COP.  
• If  a  witness  remains  in  the  Court,  his  evidence  will  be  admitted  but  less  weight  will  
be  attached  to  it.  
NWABUEZE  V.COP;  FALAJU  V.  AMOSU  
• The  Court  may  also  restrain  communication  between  the  witnesses  in  Court.  S.  213  
of  the  Evidence  Act.  
 
STAGES  OF  EXAMINATION  OF  WITNESSES  
1.   Examination  in  -­‐chief  
2.   Cross  –Examination  
3.   Re  –  Examination  
 
A-­EXAMINATION  IN  CHIEF  
The   examination   in   chief   is   the   examination   of   a   witness   by   the   party   who   called   him-­‐
SECTION  214(1)  EVIDENCE  ACT.  Method  of  putting  questions  to  witnesses  with  a  view  to  
obtaining  material  evidence  from  them.  Conducted  by  the  party  calling  the  witness.  
ROLE  OF  EXAMINATION  IN  CHIEF  
1.   The  purpose  of  examination  in  chief  is  to  obtain  from  the  witness,  first  hand,  all  the  
facts  that  he  can  prove  in  support  of  the  case  of  the  party  calling  him.  
2.   It   aids   to   elicit   the   admissible,   relevant   and   material   and   favourable   evidence   in  
relation  to  the  issues.  
3.   The   evidence   elicited   from   examination   –   in   –   chief   fine   tunes   the   parties’   theory   of  
the  case.  
4.   The   court   tends   to   see   the   true   position   of   events   from   the   witnesses’   evidence   in  
chief.  
5.   It  aids  in  the  extraction  of  truths  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  
 
It  takes  the  form  of  responses  to  questions,  which  eventually  provides  a  story  line.  Usually  
commenced   by   introductory   questions   before   main   questions.   Counsel   should   guide  
 witness  to  tell  court  only  story  that  is  relevant,  in  an  orderly,  sequential  and  easy  to  
follow  manner.  Pre-­‐trial  interview  prepare  witnesses    
 
QUESTIONS  NOT  TO  BE  ASKED  IN  EXAMINATION  IN  CHIEF  
a.   Leading  questions  shall  not  be  asked  in  examination  in  chief:  s221(1)  &  (2)  E.A.    
b.   Question’s  tending  to  give  hearsay  evidence  
c.   Questions  eliciting  evidence  of  opinion.  
d.   Questions  eliciting  oral  evidence  from  the  contents  of  a  document.  
e.  Also  irrelevant  questions  should  not  be  asked.  
 
TYPES  OF  QUESTIONS  USED  IN  EXAMINATION  IN  CHIEF  
a.   Open  questions:    Here  the  witness  tells  the  story  
b.   Closed  questions:  Limit  the  answers  to  be  given  by  the  witness.  
c.   Transitional  Questions  
 
NB  ==#For  examination–in–chief,  prepare  your  questions  based  on  the  theory  of  the  case.  
Use  open  ended  questions  e.g.  where,  why,  when,  what,  who,  how,  describe,  explain  etc.    
 
LEADING  QUESTIONS  
• A  question  suggesting  the  answer,  which  the  person  putting  the  question  wishes  or  
expects  to  receive-­S.  221  (1)  Evidence  Act  2011.  
• It  is  not  allowed  in  re-­examination  and  examination  in  chief-­S.  221(2)  EA  2011.  
 
WHEN  LEADING  QUESTIONS  WILL  BE  PERMITTED  BY  THE  COURT  
However,  the  court  shall  permit  leading  questions  in  the  following  instances.  
a.   Introductory  matters  or  
b.   Undisputed  facts  or  
c.   Matters   which   in   the   opinion   of   the   court   have   already   been   sufficiently   proved  
before  the  court.  S.  221(3)  
Note   where   an   objection   is   not   raised   to   a   leading   question   and   same   is   answered   by  
the  witness,  the  CT  can  act  on  it:  Garba  v  R  (1959)  4  FSC  162.  
Also  note  that  where  introductory  facts  are  disputed,  then  leading  questions  of  these  
facts  are  not  allowed.    
 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  
• The  examination  of  a  witness  by  a  party  other  than  the  party  who  called  him  shall  be  
called  cross  examination  Section  214  (2)  Evidence  Act  2011  
• It  comes  after  the  examination  in  Chief  has  been  completed.      
• Not  limited  to  acts  elicited  in  examination  in  chief:  s215(2)  EA  
• Cross-­‐examination   is   not   mandatory.   If   the   counsel   on   the   opposing   side   has   no   real  
issues  to  prove  by  the  questions,  then  he  should  refrain  from  asking  them:  Kpokpo  
v  Uko  
 • Where   a   witness   in   examination   –   in   –   chief   is   silent   on   a   material   point   and   did   not  
say   anything   against   the   interest   of   the   opponent   cross   examination   would   not   be  
necessary-­‐  KPOKPO  V.  UKO  
• Where  more  than  one  defendant  is  charged  at  the  same  time  each  defendant  shall  be  
allowed  to  cross-­‐examine  a  witness  called  by  the  prosecution  before  the  witness  is  
re-­‐examined:  s216  EA  
• A   co-­‐accused   is   allowed   to   cross-­‐examine   the   witness   brought   by   another   accused  
person.  This  must  be  done  before  cross  examination  by  the  prosecution:  s217  EA  
• A  person,  whether  a  party  or  not  in  a  cause,  may  be  summoned  to  produce  a  
document  without  being  summoned  to  give  evidence,  and  if  he  causes  such  
document  to  be  produced  in  court  the  court  may  dispense  with  his  personal  
attendance:  s218  EA  

• A  person  summoned  to  produce  a  document  does  not  become  a  witness  by  the  mere  
fact  that  he  produces  it  and  cannot  be  cross-­‐examined  unless  and  until  he  is  called  
as  a  witness:  s219  EA  

 
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  TO  CROSS  EXAMINE-­    
Failure  to  cross  examine  a  witness  on  a  vital  point  he  raised  during  examination  –  in  –  chief,  
may  be  regarded  as  an  admission  of  such  issue.  OFORLETE  v.  STATE  
 
PURPOSE  OF  CROSS  EXAMINATION    
1.   The  purpose  of  cross-­‐examination  is  to  contradict,  destroy,  discredit  the  evidence  of  
a  witness.  
2.   To  weaken  or  qualify  the  case  of  the  opponents.  
3.   It   is   used   as   a   means   of   establishing   the   party’s   case   through   the   opponent’s  
witnesses  
AWOPEJU  v.  STATE  
 
Cross  examination  must  relate  to  relevant  facts  but  which  are  not  directly  facts  in  issue:-­‐S.  
215(2)  EA  2011  
 
QUESTIONS  WHICH  MAY  BE  ASKED  IN  CROSS  EXAMINATION  
• Leading  questions  may  be  asked  in  Cross  –  Examination-­‐S.  221(4)  
When  a  witness  cross  examined,  he  may  be  asked  any  questions  which  tend  to  :  
a.   test  his  accuracy,  veracity  or  credibility;  or  
b.   discover  who  he  is  and  what  is  his  position  in  life;  or  
c.   shake  his  credit  by  injuring  his  character-­‐S.223  EA  2011  
 
In   considering   the   questions   of   veracity   and   credibility   of   a   witness,   the   court   should  
consider  the  following:    
• The  witness  knowledge  of  facts  to  which  he  testifies  
• The  witness’  disinterestedness  
 • The  witness’  integrity  
• Whether  his  evidence  is  contradictory  or  contradicted  by  surrounding  evidence  
Onuoha  v  State  
Questions  relating  to  credit  but  are  not  relevant  or  too  remote  to  the  proceedings  may  be  
disallowed  by  the  court.  The  court  is  under  an  obligation  to  warn  the  witness  that  he  is  not  
obliged  to  answer:  s224  EA  
 
LIMITATIONS  IN  CROSS  EXAMINATION  
The  right  to  cross-­‐examine  may  be  limited  by  the  following  circumstances.  
i.  Section  224(2)(b)  such  questions  are  improper  if  the  imputation  which  they  convey  
relates  to  matters  so  remote  in  time,  or  of  such  a  character,  that  the  truth  of  the  imputation  
would  not  affect,  or  would  affect  in  a  slight  degree,  the  opinion  of  the  court  as  to  the  
credibility  of  the  witness  on  the  matter  to  which  he  testifies;  and  section  224(2)(c)  such  
questions  are  improper  if  there  is  a  great  disproportion  between  the  importance  of  the  
imputation  made  against  the  witness's  character  and  the  importance  of  his  evidence.  

ii.   Where  a  question  is  indecent  or  scandalous  the  court  may  disallow  it:  S.  227  
iii.   Where  a  question  is  apparently  intended  to  insult  or  annoy  or  to  needlessly  offensive,  
the  court  may  not  allow  it:  S.  228  
Section   226   EA:   the   judge   is   empowered   to   report   a   counsel   who   asks   baseless   or  
questions   adjudged   to   be   without   reasonable   cause   to   the   Attorney   General   of   the  
Federation  or  any  other  authority  to  which  the  legal  practitioner  is  subject.    
TECHNIQUES  FOR  CROSS  EXAMINATION  
a.   Probing  technique:    pin  down  the  witness  to  get  a  direct  answer  
b.   Insinuation  
c.   Confirmation  
 
TEN  COMMANDEMENTS  FOR  CROSS  EXAMINATION  
1.   Be  brief,  short,  do  not  ask  more  than  one  question  at  a  time.  
2.   Avoid  open  questions,  rather  use  closed  questions.  
3.   Review  the  questions.  
4.   Do  not  ask  question  to  which  you  do  not  know  the  answer.  
5.   Listen  to  the  answer  given  by  the  witness.  
6.   When  you  elicit  the  required  answer,  stop  probing.  
7.   Do  not  be  stereotyped,  change  your  style.  
8.   Do  not  give  him  opportunity  to  repair  his  testimony.  
9.   Do  not  give  him  opportunity  to  explain  himself.  
10.   Do  not  ask  too  many  questions.  
 
OTHER  TIPS  FOR  CROSS  EXAMINATION  
a.   Maintain  eye  contact  with  the  witness  always.  
b.   Put   previous   inconsistent   statement   made   by   him   to   him   if   you   think   there   are  
material  contradictions.  
Facts  to  know  about  cross-­examination  
 • Have  a  goal  in  mind  before  deciding  to  cross  examine  –  listen  to  the  examination  in  
chief  of  the  witness  
• It  is  not  compulsory  to  cross-­‐examine  
• Do  not  base  your  decision  to  cross-­‐examine  on  going  on  a  fishing  expedition  i.e.  with  
a  view  to  finding  something  you  can  hold  unto  
• Failure   to   cross-­‐examine   on   adverse   and   material   evidence   could   be   fatal   to   your  
case    
 
Tips  on  effective  cross-­examination  
• Make  use  of  leading  questions  mostly    
• Avoid   the   use   of   open   questions,   rather   make   use   of   closed   questions   as   well   as  
direct  questions  (questions  producing  Yes  or  No  answers  should  be  used)  
• Aim  at  establishing  facts  
• Know  when  to  stop  and  don’t  overemphasise  a  point  that  has  been  scored  already  
• Avoid  getting  into  arguments  with  the  witness    
• Insist  on  an  answer  to  a  question  asked  
• Do  not  interrupt  the  witness  
• Structure  your  question  in  a  way  that  the  witness  cannot  pretend  not  to  understand    
• Maintain   eye   contact   with   the   witness   (make   sure   the   witness   cannot   make   eye  
contact  with  the  lawyer  who  called  him  
• Do  not  hesitate  to  expose  inconsistencies  in  his  testimony    
• Be  gentle,  polite,  modest  and  kind  to  the  witness  
• Avoid  asking  questions  you  do  not  know  the  answer  
• Be  adroit,  dynamic  and  flexible    
• Ask   as   few   questions   as   possible.   Too   many   questions   may   help   repair   damage  
already  done  
• Locate  a  witness’s  weak  point  and  exploit  it    
Contradiction  of  a  witness  statement  by  previous  evidence:  s232   EA.  The  statement  made  
earlier   by   the   witness   in   writing   may   be   brought   to   his   attention   for   the   purpose   of  
contradicting  him    
 
Inconsistency  rule  and  statement  made  by  an  accused  person  
• Where   a   witness   made   a   statement   before   trial   and   the   statement   is   found   to   be  
inconsistent  with  his  testimony,  his  testimony  should  be  seen  as  unreliable  and  the  
previous   statement   should   not   be   acted   upon   by   the   court.   However,   does   not   apply  
where  the  accused  gives  evidence    
 
RE  –  EXAMINATION    
This  is  the  last  stage  of  examination  of  a  witness.      
It  takes  place  where  necessary  after  cross  examination.  It  is  conducted  by  the  party   who  
called  the  witness:  SECTION  214(3)  EVIDENCE  ACT  2011  
 
 
PURPOSE/PRINCIPLES  OF  RE-­  EXAMINATION  
1.   The  aim  of  re-­‐examination  is  to  clear  ambiguities,  inconsistencies  doubts  or  haziness  
that  arise  out  of  cross-­‐examination.  
2.   Therefore,  where  is  a  no  cross-­examination,  there  cannot  be  re-­examination.  
3.   It  is  not  an  opportunity  for  the  re-­‐examiner  to  elicit  evidence,  which  he  failed  to  elicit  
in  his  examination  in  chief.  
4,   Leading  questions  shall  not  be  asked  in  re-­‐examination  –  S.  221  (2)  
5.   No  new  matter  is  entertained  in  re-­‐examination  unless  with  leave  of  court.  
6.   Where  a  party,  by  leave  of  court  to  introduce  a  new  matter  in  re-­examination,  the  
adverse  party  is  entitled  to  cross  –  examine  on  that  fresh  issue.-­‐S.  215  (3)  
7.   Denial  of  a  right  to  re-­‐examine  a  witness  is  a  denial  of  a  right  to  fair  hearing.  
-­‐  Police  v.  Nwabueze.  
 
NB-­‐s.84  EA  -­‐computer  generated  evidence-­‐Dr   Imoro   Kubor   v   Seriake   Dickson.   Also   note  
requirement  of  a  certificate  signed  by  person  responsible  for  device:  s84(4)  EA.  See  
week  14  above  
 
REFRESHING  MEMORY  –    
-­SECTION  239  Evidence  Act  
Where   a   witness   finds   it   difficult   to   remember   an   event,   which   had   taken   place   a   long   time  
ago.    Such  witness  is:  
1.   permitted  to  refer  to  any  document  made  by  him  at  the  time  of  the  transaction  or  so  
soon  afterwards-­‐s.239(1)  EA  
2.   he  may  refer  to  any  writing  made   by   any   other   person  and  read   by   the   witness  and  
if  he  knew  it  to  be  correct:  s239(2)  EA  
3.  An  expert  may  refresh  his  memory  by  reference  to  professional  treatises:  S239(3)  EA  
 
The  process  of  refreshing  memory  may  take  place  at   any   stage   of   examination  either  at  
examination  –  in  –  chief,  cross  –  examination  or  re-­‐examination.  
Any  writing  referred  to  under  sections  239  and  240  of  this  Act,  shall  be  produced  and  
shown  to  the  adverse  party  if  he  requires  it,  and  such  party  may,  if  he  pleases,  cross-­‐
examine  the  witness  upon  the  writing  -­‐S.  241  EA  

HOSTILE  WITNESS  
• The  general  rule  is  that  a  person  calling  a  witness  is  not  allowed  to  discredit  him.    
S.  230  OF  THE  EVIDENCE  ACT;  BABATUNDE  V.  STATE    
• However,  when  the  witness  testifies  against  the  party  who  called  him  and  is  
unwilling  to  tell  the  truth  or  he  is  evasive  in  the  answers  he  gives.    
• A  hostile  witness  is  one  who  in  the  opinion  of  the  court,  is  biased  against  the  party  
who  calls  him,  is  unwilling  to  testify  or  who  supports  the  other  party:  Esan  v  State    
• This  is  a  witness  who  bears  hostile  animus  to  the  party  calling  him  and  is  unwilling  
to  testify  or  tell  the  truth  
 • The  party  calling  the  witness  will  have  to  apply  to  the  Court  to  declare  the  witness  
a  Hostile  Witness  and  the  court  satisfying  itself,  can  declare  a  witness  hostile:  
s230  EA.  He  may  then  be  cross  examined:  Gaji  v  State,  Iluonu  v  Chiekwu.  CT  will  
look  at  the  surrounding  circumstances  before  declaring  the  witness  as  hostile    
• NB  -­‐the  mere  fact  that  witness  gives  evidence  not  FAVOURABLE  to  the  party  calling  
him  does  not  prima  facie  make  him  a  hostile  witness.  
• Babatunde  v  State:  a  party  calling  the  witness  is  deemed  to  be  holding  out  the  
witness  as  a  witness  of  truth.  Therefore,  a  party  calling  a  witness  cannot  discredit  
him  by  general  evidence  of  bad  character  except  where  the  court  declares  him  
hostile:  s230  EA.    
THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  COURT  DECLARING  A  WITNESS  HOSTILE  ARE  AS  FOLLOWS:    
a. He  can  be  cross-­‐examined    
b. Can  ask  him  leading  questions    
c. He   can   be   discredited   using   previous   inconsistent   statements   made   by   him.  
(leave  of  court)  
S.  231  of  the  Evidence  Act.    
 
POWER  OF  THE  COURT  TO  PUT  QUESTIONS  TO  ANY  WITNESS      
• The  Court  has  the  power  to  put  questions  to  any  witness  before  it  -­‐s.246  EA  2011  
• The  Judge  or  magistrate  is  allowed  under  CPL/CPCL  to  put  questions  to  witnesses  
in  order  to  reach  a  just  delivery  of  the  case.  
• The  aim  is  to  clear  up  ambiguities  or  a  point  left  obscure  in  his  testimony  for  the  
determination  of  the  case  justly.    
• The  questions  asked  must  be  relevant  under  the  Act  and  must  be  duly  proved  
 S.  246  (2)  
• However,  the  Court  is  not  to  descend  into  the  arena  or  ask  damaging  questions  to  
the  witnesses  or  an  accused  person.    OKORIE  V.  STATE  
• A   counsel   cannot  raise  objection   to   the   Court’s   power   to   call/recall   witnesses   and  
to  put  questions  to  them.  –  
S.  246  of  the  Evidence  Act  2011;  ONUORAH  VS.  THE  STATE.  
• Note  that  the  Court  cannot  compel  a  witness  who  is  not  compellable  to  answer  its  
questions.    
S.  36  (5)  &  (11)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended,    
AKINFE  VS.  THE  STATE    
TINUBU  V.  IMB  SECURITIES  
POWER  OF  COURT  TO  CALL  OR  RECALL  A  WITNESS  
S.  200  CPL;    
S.  237  (1)  CPCL;  
S.  197  ACJL  
• The   court   has   powers   to   call   any   witness   whether   or   not   such   a   witness   has   been  
called  by  either  party.  
NB-­This  power  is  only  available  in  criminal  matters.-­  BELLGAM  V.  BELLGAM  
• This  power  extends  to  recalling  a  witness  after  the  close  of  the  defence  on  
matters  unforeseen  which  arose  during  the  case  for  the  defence-­‐ONUOHA  V.  STATE  
• This  power  by  no  means  allows  a  judge  to  descend  to  the  arena  of  the  conflict  
-­‐OKORIE  V.  STATE  a  new  witness  was  called  by  the  Judge,  the  questions  asked  the  
witness  elected  evidence,  which  the  Judge  relied  on  to  convict  the  accused.    The  
conviction  was  quashed  on  appeal.  
• This  power  to  call  or  recall  witnesses  may  be  exercised  at  any  stage  of  the  
proceedings  before  verdict/conviction/judgment-­‐Uso  v.  Police.  
• CT  may  even  call  a  witness  not  earlier  called  by  either  party  
• For  the  just  determination  of  the  case    
 
POWER  OF  A  PARTY  TO  RECALL  WITNESS  
A   party   to   proceedings   may   have   a   crucial   need   to   recall   a   witness   for   further   examination.    
He   shall   apply   to   the   court   and   support   his   application   with   facts   as   to   why   and   what   he  
intends  to  put  to  the  witness-­‐  ALLY  V.  STATE  
 
ADMISSIBILITY  OF  DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS  
• The  basis  for  the  admissibility  of  any  document  tendered  is  if  it  is  relevant  to  the  
facts  in  issue  or  facts  relevant  to  facts  in  issue:  Section  1&  2  of  the  Evidence  Act  
2011.    
• A  document  not  before  the  Court  or  admitted  in  evidence  cannot  be  used  to  
contradict  a  witness  during  cross-­examination.  
The  admissibility  of  the  documents  usually  tendered  in  criminal  trials  are  explained  below:      
A. CONFESSIONAL  STATEMENT:  see  section  28  and  section  29(1)  –  (3),  (5)  EA  
• This  is  admissible  and  the  Court  can  safely  convict  on  it  if  voluntarily  made  by  
the  accused.    S.  28  of  the  Evidence  Act  and  YESUFU  VS  THE  STATE.    
• In  Lagos,  a  confessional  statement  must  be  video  recorded  or  made  in  the  presence  
of  a  legal  practitioner  in  order  for  it  to  be  admissible  in  evidence:  S.  9(3)  of  the  
ACJL.  
• If  the  accused  denies  making  the  statement  (this  is  called  retraction),  the  Court  
will  still  admit  it  and  decide  what  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  it.  

• Section  29(1)  In  any  proceeding,  a  confession  made  by  a  defendant  may  be  given  in  
evidence  against  him  in  so  far  as  it  is  relevant  to  any  matter  in  issue  in  the  
proceedings  and  is  not  excluded  by  the  court  in  pursuance  of  this  section.  
• Section  29(2):  If,  in  any  proceeding  where  the  prosecution  proposes  to  give  in  
evidence  a  confession  made  by  a  defendant,  it  is  represented  to  the  court  that  the  
confession  was  or  may  have  been  obtained  —  

(a)  by  oppression  of  the  person  who  made  it;  or  

(b)  in  consequence  of  anything  said  or  done  which  was  likely,  in  the  circumstances  
existing  at  the  time,  to  render  unreliable  any  confession  which  might  be  made  by  
him  in  such  consequence,  the  court  shall  not  allow  the  confession  to  be  given  in  
evidence  against  him  except  in  so  far  as  the  prosecution  proves  to  the  court  beyond  
reasonable  doubt  that  the  confession  (notwithstanding  that  it  may  be  true)  was  not  
obtained  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section.  

• Section  29(3):  In  any  proceeding  where  the  prosecution  proposes  to  give  in  
evidence  a  confession  made  by  a  defendant,  the  court  may  of  its  own  motion  require  
the  prosecution,  as  a  condition  of  allowing  it  to  do  so,  to  prove  that  the  confession  
was  not  obtained  as  mentioned  in  either  subsection  (2)(a)  or  (b)  of  this  section.  

• Where  confessional  statement  is  made  by  co-­‐accused  in  the  presence  of  others,  not  
admissible  against  them  unless  they  adopt  said  statement  by  word  or  conduct:  
s29(4)  EA  
• Section  29(5)  EA:  In  this  section  "oppression"  includes  torture,  inhuman  or  
degrading  treatment,  and  the  use  or  threat  of  violence  whether  or  not  amounting  to  
torture.  

• Accused  may  be  convicted  solely  based  on  his  confessional  statement  if  the  court  is  
fully  satisfied:  Nwachukwu  v  State,  Gabriel  v  State,    

• Awosika  v  State  –  6  tests  for  verification    

(1)  Is  there  anything  outside  the  confessional  statement  to  show  that  it  is  true?    
(2)  Is  it  corroborated?  (3)  Are  the  statements  made  in  it  of  facts  as  far  as  they  can  be  
tested?  (4)Was  the  prisoner  one  who  had  the  opportunity  of  committing  the  
offence?  (5)  Is  his  confession  Possible?  (6)  Is  it  consistent  with  other  facts  which  
have  been  ascertained  and  which  have  been  proved?  
 

STEPS  TAKEN  BY  THE  COURT  WHEN  THERE  IS  AN  ALLEGATION  OF  
INVOLUNTARINESS  
• If  the  accused  alleges  that  he  made  the  statement  out  of  duress  or  oppression,  the  
Court  must  conduct  a  TRIAL  WITHIN  A  TRIAL  in  order  to  ascertain  its  
voluntariness  or  not:  Ike  v  State.  Only  admissible  if  voluntary    
• In  such  trial,  the  prosecution  will  first  open  its  case  to  show  that  the  statement  
was  made  voluntary  then  the  defence  will  later  open  its  case.    
 • The  Court  must  rule  on  it  and  if  it  holds  that  the  confessional  statement  was  made  
voluntarily  it  will  admit  it  in  evidence  and  the  normal  trial  will  proceed.      
TENDERING  OF  CONFESSIONAL  STATEMENT  
• A  confessional  statement  must  be  tendered  in  whole  whether  a  part  is  favourable  to  
the  accused  or  not.  
• It  must  also  implicate  the  accused.  See  R  V.  ITULE.        
• Proper  foundation  must  be  laid  for  its  admissibility  through  the  Investigating  
Police  Officer  –  normally  by  stating  that  the  accused  was  cautioned  before  he  
wrote  the  confessional  statement,  that  the  accused  wrote  the  statement  
voluntarily  and  signed  it;  the  IPO  signed  the  statement  and  the  statement  was  
countersigned  by  a  superior  police  officer    
B. EXPERT  EVIDENCE    
The  general  rule  is  that  the  opinion  of  an  individual  is  inadmissible  evidence  –S.67  EA  
Persons  specially  skilled  in  certain  areas:  s68  EA  
Must  possess  skill  and  qualification  to  be  so  referred:  Essien  v  R  
Rejection  of  expert  evidence  by  court:  Arise  v  State,  Aladu  v  State  
Expert   evidence   is   mandatory   to   prove   some   offences:   Ishola   v   State,   Stevenson   v   Police:  
unlawful  possession  of  hard  drugs.  However,  in  Chukwu  v  FRN:  CT  held  where  an  accused  
confesses  guilt,  there  may  be  no  need  to  obtain  expert  evidence    
 
However,   such   evidence   of   opinion   may   be   admissible   if   it   falls   within   the   exceptions  
created  under  Ss.  68  –75  EA  
 
One  of  the  exceptions  is  in  respect  of  expert  evidence.    S.  68  of  the  Evidence  Act  2011.  
•  For  it  to  be  admissible,  proper  foundation  must  be  laid  to  show  the  expert’s  
qualification,  skill  and  experience.    
• Also  the  expert  can  put  in  his  expert  Report  without  being  called  in  Court.    
AZU  Vs.  THE  STATE.    
The  general  rule  is  that  the  opinion  of  a  person  is  not  admissible  in  Court  except  as  
provided  in  the  Evidence  Act:  Section  67  EA  
Section  68(1):  When  the  court  has  to  form  an  opinion  upon  a  point  of  foreign  law,  
customary  law  or  when  and  custom,  or  of  science  or  art,  or  as  to  identity  of  handwriting  or  
finger  impressions,  the  opinions  upon  that  point  of  persons  specially  skilled  in  such  foreign  
law,  customary  law  or  custom,  or  science  or  art,  or  in  questions  as  to  identity  of  
handwriting  or  finger  impressions,  are  admissible.  (2)  Persons  so  specially  skilled  as  
mentioned  in  subsection  (1)  of  this  section  are  called  experts.  

Section  69:  Where  there  is  a  question  as  to  foreign  law,  the  opinions  of  experts  who  in  
their  Opinions  as  to  foreign  profession  are  acquainted  with  such  law  are  admissible  
evidence  of  it,  though  such  experts  may  produce  to  the  court  books  which  they  declare  to  
be  works  of  authority  upon  the  foreign  law  in  question,  which  books  the  court,  having  
received  all  necessary  explanations  from  the  expert,  may  construe  for  itself.  

Section  70:  In  deciding  questions  of  customary  law  and  custom,  the  opinions  of  traditional  
rulers,  chiefs  or  other  persons  having  special  knowledge  of  the  customary  law  and  custom  
and  any  book  or  manuscript  recognised  as  legal  authority  by  people  indigenous  to  the  
locality  in  which  such  law  or  custom  applies,  are  admissible.  

Section  71:  Facts  not  otherwise  relevant  are  relevant  if  they  support  or  are  inconsistent  
with  the  opinions  of  experts,  when  such  opinions  are  admissible.  

Section  72(1):  When  the  court  has  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  person  by  whom  any  
document  was  handwriting,  when  written  or  signed,  the  opinion  of  any  person  acquainted  
with  the  handwriting  of  the  person  by  admissible,  whom  it  is  supposed  to  be  written  or  
signed  that  it  was  or  was  not  written  or  signed  by  that  person,  is  admissible.  

(2)  A  person  is  said  to  be  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of  another  person  when  he  has  
seen  that  person  write,  or  when  he  has  received  documents  purporting  to  be  written  by  
that  person  in  answer  to  documents  written  by  himself  or  under  his  authority  and  
addressed  to  that  person,  or  when  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  documents  
purporting  to  be  written  by  that  person  have  been  habitually  submitted  to  him.  

Section  73.  (1)  When  the  court  has  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  existence  of  any  general  
custom  or  right,  the  opinions,  as  to  the  existence  of  such  custom  or  right,  of  persons  who  
would  be  likely  to  know  of  its  existence  if  it  existed  are  admissible.  

(2)  The  expression  "general  custom  or  right"  includes  customs  or  rights  common  to  any  
considerable  class  of  persons.
  

Section  74:  When  the  court  has  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  —  

(a)  the  usages  and  tenets  of  any  body  of  men  or  family;  

(b)the  constitution  and  government  of  any  religious  or  charitable  foundation;  or  

(c)the  meaning  of  words  or  terms  used  in  particular  districts  or  by  particular  classes  of  
people,  the  opinions  of  persons  having  special  means  of  knowledge  on  the  matters  
specified  in  this  section,  are  admissible.  

Section  75:  When  the  court  has  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  relationship  of  one  person  to  
another,  the  opinion  expressed  by  conduct,  as  to  the  existence  of  such  relationship  of  any  
person  who,  as  a  member  of  the  family  or  otherwise,  has  special  means  of  knowledge  on  
the  subject,  is  admissible:  Provided  that  such  opinion  shall  not  be  sufficient  to  prove  a  
marriage  in  proceeding  for  a  divorce  or  in  a  petition  for  damages  against  an  adulterer  or  in  
a  prosecution  for  bigamy.  

Section  76:  Whenever  the  opinion  of  any  living  person  is  admissible,  the  grounds  on  which  
such  opinion  is  based  are  also  admissible.  
Cross  examination  of  an  expert  witness  
• Two  aims  must  be  borne  in  mind:  to  discredit  him  and  expose  him  as  unreliable  
witness  to  his  supposed  field  of  expertise  
• You  need  to  present  alternative  conclusion  or  inference  that  can  be  drawn  to  the  set  
of  facts  upon  which  his  opinion  is  based  
• He  can  also  be  tackled  on  the  ground  that  he  lacks  full  understanding  of  the  facts  
which  he  worked  
• To  be  able  to  do  this,  you  need  to  achieve  a  working  knowledge  of  that  practice  field  
by  consulting  other  experts  
 
C.  POLICE  REPORT  (CASE  DIARY).    
• The  general  rule  is  that  the  Police  Report  is  not  admissible  in  evidence  against  an  
accused.    

 S.  122(1)  of  the  CPCL    

GAJI  VS.  STATE.    
• However,  it  is  admissible  is  if  the  IPO’s  attendance  cannot  be  procured  without  
delay  and;    
1. the  defence  did  not  object  to  its  admissibility    
2. the  Court  consents    -­‐  S.  49  of  the  Evidence  Act  
NB-­‐The  IPO  can  use  the  Report  to  refresh  his  memory.          
 
ADMISSIBILITY  OF  HEARSAY  EVIDENCE  
A  statement  oral   or   written  made  otherwise  than  by  a   witness   in  a  proceeding  or  which  is  
tendered  in  evidence-­  S.  37  EVIDENCE  ACT  2011,  Okoro  v  State,  Achora  v  AG  Bendel.  
Section  37  EA:  hearsay  evidence  means  a  statement  (a)  oral  or  written  made  otherwise  
than  by  a  witness  in  a  proceeding;  or  (b)  contained  or  recorded  in  a  book,  document  or  any  
record  whatever,  proof  of  which  is  not  admissible  under  any  provision  of  this  Act,  which  is  
tendered  in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  truth  of  the  matter  stated  in  it.  
Generally,  hearsay  evidence  is  not  admissible:  S.  38  EA  
However,  there  are  exceptions  to  the  rule  against  hearsay  evidence.    They  include:  
1.   Statements  by  persons  who  cannot  be  called  as  witnesses:  S39  
  a.   a  person  who  is  dead  
  b.   who  cannot  be  found  
  c.   who  has  become  incapable  of  giving  evidence,  or  
  d.   whose   attendance   cannot   be   procured   without   unreasonable   delay   or  
expense.  
 
2   Statements  by  Deceased  Persons    
  a.   Dying  declaration  S.  40  
b.   Statement  made  in  the  course  of  business  S.  41  
 c.   Statement  against  interest  of  maker  with  special  knowledge  S.  42  
d.   Statements   of   opinion   as   to   public   right   or   custom   &   matter   of   general  
interest  S.  43  
e.   Statement  relating  to  existence  of  relationship  S.  44  
f.   Declarations  by  testator  S.  45  
3.   Evidence  of  a  witness  in  former  proceedings  S.  46  –  48  
4.   Admission   of   written   statements   by   investigation   Police   Officers   in   certain  
cases  S.  49  
6.   Statements  made  in  Special  circumstances  
  a.   Entries  in  books  of  accounts  S.  51  
  b.   Entry  in  public  records  made  in  performance  of  duty  S.  52  
  c.   Statements  in  maps,  charts  and  plans  S.  53  
  d.   Statements   as   to   fact   of   public   nature   contained   in   certain   Acts   or  
Notifications  S.  54  
7.   Certificates  of  specified  Government  Officers  S.  55  
8.  Certificates  of  Central  Bank  Officers  S.  56  
9.   Evidence  of  family  or  communal  tradition  in  Land  cases  S.  66  
10.   Statements  in  public  documents  
10.   Statements  in  res  gestae.  
Also  affidavit  evidence  is  an  exception  to  hearsay  evidence.  
 
 
 
 
EXCLUSION  OF  ORAL  BY  DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE-­S.  128  EA  2011  
• Generally,   the   contents   of   a   document   can   only   be   proved   by   tendering   the  
document  itself  in  evidence.  
• However,   there   are   circumstances   where   the   court   may   permit   oral   evidence   in  
proof  of  the  contents  of  a  document.    
 
NOTE:   admissibility   of   computer   generated   evidence   S.   84   EA;   Documentary  
Evidence.  The  Proper  Foundations  for  the  Admissibility  of  each  one  in  evidence    
Admissibility  of  documentary  evidence  (see  slides  and  Evidence  Act  to  complete  this  part)    
83.-­  (1)  In  a  proceeding  where  direct  oral  evidence  of  a  fact  would  be  admissible,  any  
statement  made  by  a  person  in  a  document  which  seems  to  establish  that  fact  shall,  on  
production  of  the  original  document,  be  admissible  as  evidence  of  that  fact  if  the  
following  conditions  are  satisfied—  

(a)  if  the  maker  of  the  statement  either  —
(i)had  personal  knowledge  of  the  matters  
dealt  with  by  the  statement,  or  

(ii)where  the  document  in  question  is  or  forms  part  of  a  record  purporting  to  be  a  
continuous  record
made  the  statement  (in  so  far  as  the  matters  dealt  with  by  it  are  
 not  within  his  personal  knowledge)  in  the  performance  of  a  duty  to  record  information  
supplied  to  him  by  a  person  who  had,  or  might  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have,  
personal  knowledge  of  those  matters;  and  

(b)  if  the  maker  of  the  statement  is  called  as  a  witness  in  the  proceeding:  

Provided  that  the  condition  that  the  maker  of  the  statement  shall  be  called  as  a  
witness  need  not  be  satisfied  if  he  is  dead,  or  unfit  by  reason  of  his  bodily  or  mental  
condition  to  attend  as  a  witness,  or  if  he  is  outside  Nigeria  and  it  is  not  reasonably  
practicable  to  secure  his  attendance,  or  if  all  reasonable  efforts  to  find  him  have  been  
made  without  success.  

(2)
if  having  regard  to  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  it  is  satisfied  that  undue  delay  
or  expense  would  otherwise  be  caused,  order  that  such  a  statement  as  is  mentioned  in  
subsection  (1)  of  this  section  shall  be  admissible  as  evidence  or  may,  without  any  such  
order  having  been  made,  admit  such  a  statement  in  evidence  notwithstanding  that  -­  

In  any  proceeding,  the  court  may  at  any  stage  of  the  proceeding,  

(a)the  maker  of  the  statement  is  available  but  is  not  called  as  a  witness;  and  

(b)the  original  document  is  not  produced,  if  in  lieu  of  it  there  is  produced  a  copy  of  the  
original  document  or  of  the  material  part  of  it  certified  to  be  a  true  copy  in  such  
manner  as  may  be  specified  in  the  order  or  as  the  court  may  approve,  as  the  case  may  
be.  

(3)
statement  made  by  a  person  interested  at  a  time  when  proceedings  were  pending  
or  anticipated  involving  a  dispute  as  to  any  fact  which  the  statement  might  tend  to  
establish.  

(4)  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  a  statement  in  a  document  shall  not  be  deemed  to  
have  been  made  by  a  person  unless  the  document  or  the  material  part  of  it  was  written,  
made  or  produced  by  him  with  his  own  hand,  or  was  signed  or  initialed  by  him  or  
otherwise  recognised  by  him  in  writing  as  one  for  the  accuracy  of  which  he  is  
responsible.  

(5)  For  the  purpose  of  deciding  whether  or  not  a  statement  is  admissible  as  evidence  
by  virtue  of  this  section,  the  court  may  draw  any  reasonable  inference  from  the  form  or  
contents  of  the  document  in  which  the  statement  is  contained,  or  from  any  other  
circumstances,  and  may,  in  deciding,  whether  or  not  a  person  is  fit  to  attend  as  a  
witness,  act  on  a  certificate  purporting  to  be  the  certificate  of  a  registered  medical  
practitioner.  

• Section  83  E.A.  2011  provides  that  the  primary  means  of  producing  a  document  is  
the  production  of  the  original  document.    But  that  is  not  the  only  requirement.  An  
addition  requirement  contained  in  section  83(1)(a)  E.A.  2011,  is  that  contents  of  
the  document  itself  must  emanate  from  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  maker.    
 • Also  section  83(1)(b)  E.A.  2011  says  that  the  person  who  made  the  document  must  
be  called.  But  section  83(1)(b)  need  not  be  satisfied  if  the  maker  is  dead,  unfit,  is  
outside  Nigeria  and  getting  him  here  would  be  unreasonable,  or  if  the  maker  of  the  
document  cannot  be  found.  
• Section  83(2)  E.A.  means  that  the  even  though  primary  means  of  proof  of  a  
document  is  the  original  document,  there  are  circumstances  where  secondary  
evidence  of  the  document  may  be  admissible  in  evidence.  The  primary  method  is  to  
produce  the  original  document  itself.  
Other  Categories  of  Documents  
• Section  85  E.A.  2011  says  that  “the  contents  of  documents  can  be  proved  by  primary  
or  secondary  evidence”.  
• Section  86  E.A.  2011  says  that  the  primary  evidence  is  the  document  itself  that  is  
produced  for  the  court.  Section  86  E.A.  2011:  
86.(1)  Primary  evidence  means  the  document  itself  produced  for  the  inspection  of  the  
court.  

(2)Where  a  document  has  been  executed  in  several  parts,  each  part  shall  be  primary  
evidence  of  the  document.  

(3)Where  a  document  has  been  executed  in  counterpart,  each  counterpart  being  
executed  by  one  or  some  of  the  parties  only,  each  counterpart  shall  be  primary  
evidence  as  against  the  parties  executing  it.  

(4)  Where  a  number  of  documents  have  all  been  made  by  one  uniform  process,  as  in  
the  case  of  printing,  lithography,  photography,  computer  or  other  electronic  or  
mechanical  process,  each  shall  be  primary  evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  rest;  but  
where  they  are  all  copies  of  a  common  original,  they  shall  not  be  primary  evidence  of  
the  contents  of  the  original.  

Secondary  evidence  is  defined  by  section  87  E.A.  2011.  This  includes  certified  true  copies.  
Section  87  E.A.  2011  says:  

87.  Secondary  evidence  includes—
 (a)  certified  copies  given  under  the  provisions  
hereafter  contained  in  this  Act;  

(b)  copies  made  from  the  original  by  mechanical  or  electronic  processes  which  in  
themselves  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  copy,  and  copies  compared  with  such  copies;  

(c)  copies  made  from  or  compared  with  the  original;
  

(d)  counterparts  of  documents  as  against  the  parties  who  did  not  execute  them;  and  

(e)  oral  accounts  of  the  contents  of  a  document  given  by  some  person  who  has  himself  
seen  it.  
Section  88  E.A.  2011  provides  that  documents  shall  be  proved  by  primary  evidence,  
except  as  mentioned  in  the  Evidence  Act  2011.    
The  exceptions  are  set  out  in  Section  89  E.A.  2011  which  says:  
89.  Secondary  evidence  may  be  given  of  the  existence,  condition  or  contents  of  a  
document  when-­  

(a)the  original  is  shown  or  appears  to  be  in  the  possession  or  power—
(i)  of  the  
person  against  whom  the  document  is  sought  to  be  proved,  or  

(ii)  of  any  person  legally  bound  to  produce  it,  and  when  after  the  notice  mentioned  in  
section  91  such  person  does  not  produce  it;  

(b)  the  existence,  condition  or  contents  of  the  original  have  been  proved  to  be  admitted  
in  writing  by  the  person  against  whom  it  is  proved  or  by  his  representative  in  interest;  

(c)  the  original  has  been  destroyed  or  lost  and  in  the  latter  case  all  possible  search  has  
been  made  for  it;  

(d)  the  original  is  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  be  easily  movable;
  

(e)  the  original  is  a  public  document  within  the  meaning  of  section  102;  

(f)  the  original  is  a  document  of  which  a  certified  copy  is  permitted  by  this  Act  or  by  
any  other  law  in  force  in  Nigeria,  to  be  given  in  evidence;  

(g)  the  originals  consist  of  numerous  accounts  or  other  documents  which  cannot  
conveniently  be  examined  in  court,  and  the  fact  to  be  proved  is  the  general  result  of  the  
whole  collection;  or  

(h)  the  document  is  an  entry  in  a  banker's  book.  

Section  90  E.A.  2011  specifies  the  types  of  secondary  evidence  that  may  be  admissible  in  
the  various  exceptions  set  out  in  section  89  E.A.  2011.  Section  90  E.A.  2011  says:  
90.  (1)  The  secondary  evidence  admissible  in  respect  of  the  original  documents  
referred  to  in  the  several  paragraphs  of  section  89  is  as  follows—  

(a)  in  paragraphs  (a),  (c)  and  (d),  any  secondary  evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  
document  is  admissible;  

(b)  in  paragraph  (b),  the  written  admission  is  admissible;  

(c)  in  paragraph  (e)  or  (f),  a  certified  copy  of  the  document,  but
no  other  secondary  
evidence,  is  admissible;
  

(d)  in  paragraph  (g),  evidence  may  be  given  as  to  the  general  result  of  the  documents  
 by  any  person  who  has  examined  them  and  who  is  skilled  in  the  examination  of  such  
documents;  and  

(e)  in  paragraph  (h)  the  copies  cannot  be  received  as  evidence  unless  it  is  first  be  
proved  that—  

(i)  the  book  in  which  the  entries  copied  were  made  was  at  the  time  of  making  one  of  
the  ordinary  books  of  the  bank,  

(ii)  the  entry  was  made  in  the  usual  and  ordinary  course  of  business,  (iii)  the  book  is  in  
the  control  and  custody  of  the  bank,  which  proof  may  be  given  orally  or  by  affidavit  by  
an  officer  of  the  bank,  and  

(iv)  the  copy  has  been  examined  with  the  original  entry  and  is  correct,  which  proof  
must  be  given  by  some  person  who  has  examined  the  copy  with  the  original  entry,  and  
may  be  given  orally  or  by  affidavit.  

For  our  purposes,  the  lecturer  focussed  on  secondary  evidence  of  public  documents,  
which  is  an  exception  set  out  in  Section  89(e)  E.A.  2011.  Therefore  the  most  relevant  
section  of  section  90  is  section  90(c)  E.A  2011.    
Section  91:  Secondary  evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  documents  referred  to  in  section  
89(a)  shall  not  be  given  unless  the  party  proposing  to  give  such  secondary  evidence  has  
previously  given  to  the  party  in  whose  possession  or  power  the  document  is,  or  to  a  legal  
practitioner  employed  by  such  party,  such  notice  to  produce  it  as  is  prescribed  by  law;  and  
if  no  notice  to  produce  is  prescribed  by  law  then  such  notice  as  the  court  considers  
reasonable  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  

Provided  that  such  notice  shall  not  be  required  in  order  to  render  secondary  evidence  
admissible  in  any  of  the  following  cases,  or  in  any  other  case  in  which  the  court  thinks  fit  to  
dispense  with  it—  

(a)  when  the  document  to  be  proved  is  itself  a  notice;
(b)  when,  from  the  nature  of  the  
case,  the  adverse  party  must  know  that  he  will  be  required  to  produce  it;  

(c)  when  it  appears  or  is  proved  that  the  adverse  party  has  obtained  possession  of  the  
original  by  fraud  or  force;  

(d)  when  the  adverse  party  or  his  agent  has  the  original  in  court;  or  

(e)  when  the  adverse  party  or  his  agent  has  admitted  the  loss  of  the  document.  

The  terms,  ‘Public  Documents’  are  defined  in  section  102  E.A.  2011:  

Section  102.  The  following  documents  are  public  documents—
(a)  documents  forming  the  
official  acts  or  records  of  the  official  acts  of—  

(i)  the  sovereign  authority,
(ii)  official  bodies  and  tribunals,  or  

 (iii)  public,  officers,  legislative,  judicial  and  executive,  whether  of  Nigeria  or  elsewhere:  
and  

(b)  public  records  kept  in  Nigeria  of  private  documents.  

Section  103:  All  documents  other  than  public  documents  are  private  documents.  The  
conditions  for  admissibility  of  public  documents  are  contained  in  Sections  104  –  105  E.A.  
2011.    

Section  104.-­(1)  Every  public  officer  having  the  custody  of  a  public  document  which  any  
person  has  a  right  to  inspect  shall  give  that  person  on  demand  a  copy  of  it  on  payment  of  the  
legal  fees  prescribed  in  that  respect,  together  with  a  certificate  written  at  the  foot  of  such  
copy  that  it  is  a  true  copy  of  such  document  or  part  of  it  as  the  case  may  be.  

(2)  The  certificate  mentioned  in  subsection  (1)  of  this  section  shall  be  dated  and  subscribed  by  
such  officer  with  his  name  and  his  official  title,  and  shall  be  sealed,  whenever  such  officer  is  
authorized  by  law  to  make  use  of  a  seal,  and  such  copies  so  certified  shall  be  called  certified  
copies.  (3)An  officer  who,  by  the  ordinary  course  of  official  duty,  is  authorized  to  deliver  such  
copies,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  the  custody  of  such  documents  within  the  meaning  of  this  
section.  

Section  105.  Copies  of  documents  certified  in  accordance  with  section  104  may  be  produced  
in  proof  of  the  contents  of  the  public  documents  or  parts  of  the  public  documents  of  which  
they  purport  to  be  copies.  

If  a  public  document  is  properly  certified  as  required  by  law,  it  is  admissible  without  the  
need  to  call  a  witness.  You  simply  tender  to  the  court  the  public  document  

WEEK  16-­TRIAL  4:    PRESENTATION  OF  THE  CASE  FOR  THE  DEFENCE  
After  the  last  prosecution  witness  is  excused  by  the  court,  prosecution  will  close  his  case.  
Court  will  consider  whether  a  prima  facie  case  has  been  made  by  the  prosecution  to  
necessitate  the  accused  person  to  open  his  case.  If  it  appears  to  the  court  that  the  case  has  
not  been  made  out  sufficiently,  then  defendant  cannot  be  asked  to  prove  his  innocence.  
This  results  in  a  discharge:  s239(1)  ACJL,  286  CPL,  s191(3)  CPCL.  Discharge  whether  the  
accused  is  represented  by  counsel  or  not.  If  represented  by  counsel,  it  is  expected  that  
counsel  will  make  the  application  but  court  can  discharge  suo  motu.  
Note  that  if  making  a  no  case  submission,  no  requirement  that  it  must  be  in  writing  or  filed  
before  it  can  be  made.  Counsel  can  orally  make  a  no  case  submission  at  the  close  of  
prosecution’s  case.  
   
IN  OPENING  THE  CASE  FOR  THE  DEFENCE,  THE  ACCUSED  PERSON  HAS  TWO  BROAD  
OPTIONS;  
• He  may  make  a  No  Case  Submission.      
• He  may  choose  to  enter  into  his  own  defence.  
 
A-­NO  CASE  SUBMISSION/RULING  
 • This  can  be  made  by  the  defence  or  the  Court  on  its  own  volition  at  the  close  of  the  
prosecution’s  case  where  a  prima   facie   case   has  not  been  established  against  the  
accused:  DABOR  &  ANOR  v.  THE  STATE  
• When  it  is  made  by  the  court,  it  is  called  a  no  case  ruling.  
• It  may  be  made  in  respect  of  one  count  of  offence  or  the  entire  charge  sheet.  The  
court  must  make  a  ruling  on  each  count  of  offence  separately-­‐AJANI  &  ORS  v.  R  
 
PURPOSE  OF  A  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION-­  To  prevent  the  accused  from  entering  his  defence  
and  prove  his  innocence  and  to  save  the  Court’s  time.  EMEDO  VS.  THE  STATE;  S.36(5)  

CONDITIONS  FOR  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION-­  

S.  239(1)  of  the  ACJL,  S.  286  of  the  CPL  and  S.  191  of  the  CPCL.  
1. When  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  an  essential  element  of  the  each  alleged  
offence-­‐  R  V.COKER  
2. When  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  Prosecution  has  been  so  discredited  during  
cross-­‐examination  –  (refer  to  the  specific  portions  of  the  evidence  that  are  
unreliable  e.g.  evidence  of  PW1  etc)  
3. When  the  evidence  is  so  manifestly  unreliable  that  no  reasonable  Tribunal/Court  
can  safely  convict  upon  it-­‐EMEDO  V.  STATE.  
NOTE-­‐These   conditions   stated   above   are   culled   from   the   Practice   Note   of   PARKER   L.   J.  
(England)   issued   by   the   Queen’s   Bench   Division   of   the   High   Court   of   England-­
S.363/262/35CPL/ACJL/HCNR)   and   were   approved   and   applied   in   IBEZIAKOR   v.  
COMMISSIONER  OF  POLICE  
 
NOTE-­‐These  conditions  are  not  cumulative-­‐Existence  of  ANY  of  the  conditions  is  
sufficient.  
Court  must  rule  separately  on  each  of  the  count:  Ajani  &  ors  v  R.  
If  upheld,  it  is  for  the  court  to  uphold  the  no  case  submission.  And  prosecution  wants  court  
to  overrule  the  no  case  submission.  It  must  be  detailed  like  any  other  judgment  if  court  is  
upholding  the  no  case  submission.  If  overruling  it,  ruling  should  be  brief  and  refrain  from  
expressing  an  opinion  on  evidence  adduced:  State  v  Audu,  Emedo  v  State.  Court  must  not  
fetter  its  discretion:  R  v  Ekanem.  Inordinate  length  cannot  fetter  discretion:  Odofin  Bello  
v  State.  Length  alone  is  insufficient  to  nullify  a  trial:  Atano  &  Anor  v  AG  Bendel.  The  proof  
here  is  not  beyond  reasonable  doubt.    
 
EFFECT  OF  A  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  WHEN  RIGHTLY  UPHELD  BY  THE  COURT  
1. CPL  STATES-­  it  is  a  discharge  on  the  merits  and  the  accused  will  be  acquitted.    
NB-­‐  A  Bar  plea  will  avail  him  -­‐  IGP  V.  MARKE  ;NWALI  V.  IGP,  EMEDO  V.  STATE-­
S.286&301  CPL  
 
2. ACJL(LAGOS)-­A  Discharge  on  a  no  case  submission  operates  as  an  acquittal-­‐S.  
239(1)  of  the  ACJL;  EMEDO  VS.  THE  STATE  
   
3. CPCL  STATES-­  This  depends  on  the  COURT-­‐S.159  and  169  CPCL  
• -­‐High  Court-­‐  discharge  on  the  merit  and  therefore  an  acquittal.      
S.  191  (3)  &  (5)  CPCL  
• Magistrate’s  Court-­a  discharge  but  not  on  the  merits:  S159(3)  &  169(3)  CPCL.  
A   discharge   in   the   magistrate’s   court   shall   not   be   a   bar   to   further   proceedings  
against   the   accused   on   the   same   charge.  A  plea  of  autrefois   acquit   based  on  it  
will  necessarily  fail.  
 
EFFECT  OF  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  IF  WRONGLY  UPHELD  
The  appellate  court  will    
• Quash  the  order  of  the  trial  Court  acquitting  the  accused  AND  
• Order  for  a  retrial  for  the  accused  to  defend  himself  -­‐  Police  V  OSSAI;  COP  V.  AGI  
 
EFFECT  OF  A  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  RIGHTLY  OVERRULED  
• The  accused  will  enter  his  defence.    
• Any   subsequent   evidence   adduced   before   the   court   is   proper   and   material   to   the  
case:  CHUKA  v  THE  STATE  
• Where  such  evidence  implicates  an  accused  person,  he  can  be  safely  convicted  on  it.  
• The  CONVICTION  above  will  be  valid  irrespective  of  the  accused  taking  further  part  
in  the  proceedings-­‐  
CHUKA  VS.  THE  STATE    
 OKORO  VS.  THE  STATE.    
CPCL:  in  magistrate  court,  if  no  case  to  answer  is  overruled,  the  accused  person  can  apply  
to  recall  prosecution  witnesses  to  cross-­‐examine  them  before  opening  his  defence.    
 
EFFECT  OF  A  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  WRONGLY  OVERRULED  
• The  accused  may  enter  his  defence  OR  rest  his  case  on  the  Prosecution’s  case.    
• Any   conviction   based   on   incriminating   subsequent   evidence   will   be   quashed   on  
appeal  as  it  is  a  nullity    
• The  fact  that  he  took  FURTHER  PART  in  the  proceedings  OR  WITHDREW  after  his  
no  case  submission  is  irrelevant-­‐  MUMUNI  &  ORS  V.  THE  STATE;  OKORO  V.  THE  
STATE;  DABOH  V  THE  STATE  
NATURE  OF  A  RULING  OF  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  WHEN  IT  IS  RIGHTLY  UPHELD  
• Where   the   court   upholds   the   submission   of   no   case   to   answer,   its   ruling   is   a  
decision  on  the  matter.      
• The  ruling  must  be  detailed  and  contain  the  reason  for  the  decision,  just  like  any  
other  judgment  of  a  court.  
 
NATURE  OF  A  RULING  OF  A  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  WHEN  IT  IS  RIGHTLY  OVERRULED  
 • The  ruling  of  a  court  is  not  a  decision  on  the  substantive  case.      
•  The  ruling  must  be  brief  so  as  not  to  fetter  the  judge’s  discretion-­‐ODOFIN  BELLO  
v.  THE  STATE  
• The  court  can  give  a  lengthy  ruling  if  it  intends  to  acquit  the  accused  
• It   is   not   the   length   of   a   ruling   per   se   that   determines   that   a   judge   has   fettered   his  
discretion.  
• Rather,  it  is  the  contents   of   the   ruling  that  shows  whether  the  judge  has  fettered  
his  discretion.  ATANO  &  ANOR  v.  ATTORNEY  GENEAL  (BENDEL)(15  page  ruling)  
• Ruling  must  be  confined   to   the   issues  raised  by  the  Defence  in  the  submission  such  
as  veracity  or  insufficiency  of  evidence-­‐ABRU  v.  STATE;  R.  v.  EKANEM  
• The   court   should   refrain   from   expressing   any   opinion   on   the   evidence   already  
before  it.-­‐THE  STATE  v.  AUDU.  
 
OPENING  CASE  FOR  THE  DEFENCE    
If  prima  facie  case  is  established,  defence  will  open  his  case  for  defence    
 S.  287  of  the  CPL,    
S.  191  of  the  CPCL    
S.  240  of  the  ACJL  
.      
THE  3  OPTIONS  OPEN  TO  AN  ACCUSED  IN  OPENING  HIS  DEFENCE  ARE  AS  FOLLOWS:    
1. Make  his  statement  unsworn  from  the  dock  
EFFECT  -­:    
a. he  will  not  be  sworn  on  oath  to  testify    
b. he  is  not  liable  to  be  cross-­‐examined      
c. he  is  not  seen  or  treated    as  a  witness    
ADVANTAGE-­‐if  accused  is  a  doubtful  witness  he  is  spared  the  rigors  of  cross-­‐examination  
DISADVANTAGE-­‐  court  will  not  attach  much  weight  to  his  evidence  
 
2.  Give  sworn  evidence  from  the  witness  box    
EFFECT  
a. he  will  give  sworn  evidence  in  the  witness  box  
b. he  is  liable  to  cross-­‐examination  but  not  compellable    
c. much  weight  will  be  attached  to  his  evidence    
 
ADVANTAGE-­‐this   is   advisable   for   a   credible   and   stable   accused   person   as   his   evidence  
can  withstand  cross  examination  
 
3. May  remain  silent  -­  S.  36(11)  &  (5)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.  
EFFECT  
a. He  will  not  ADDUCE  any  evidence  whatsoever  
b. He  is  deemed  to  have  RESTED  HIS  CASE  on  the  Prosecution’s  case  and  the  court  can  
give  a  VALID  conviction  on  that  basis-­‐AKPAN  V.  STATE  
c. So  there  will  be  written  addresses  and  then  judgment  
Note-­‐  the  prosecution  cannot  comment  on  the  silence  of  the  accused-­‐S.236(1)(C)  CPCL  
NOTE  if  the   accused   chooses   any   of   the   options   above   in   opening   his   defence,   he   can   call  
witnesses.  
S.  287  (1)  (a)  CPL,    
S.  36  (6)(d)  CFRN  (as  amended)  
 
If  represented  by  counsel,  the  court  shall  assumes  counsel  knows  the  implication  of  these  
options   and   call   upon   counsel   to   proceed   with   the   defence:   s287(1)(b)   CPL,   AKPAN   V  
STATE    
 
DUTY  OF  THE  COURT  AFTER  ACCUSED  SELECTS  ANY  OF  THE  OPTIONS  ABOVE-­  
IF  HE  IS  NOT  REPRESENTED  BY  COUNSEL;  
• The  Court  must  read  out  and  explain  the  implications  of  each  of  the  3  options  
available  to  him  
• Court  must  record  that  it  is  complied  with  this  requirement:  JOSIAH  V  STATE  
EFFECT    
Failure  of  the  Court  to  do  so  (e.g.  court  explained  but  didn’t  record  that  it  explained)  
will  not  vitiate  the  trial  except  it  occasioned  a  miscarriage  of  justice  resulting  in  
the  conviction,  depending  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case-­‐JOSIAH  VS.  THE  STATE;    
S.288  CPL;  S.240  ACJL  
SAKA  V.  STATE  (No  miscarriage  of  justice);  KAJOLA  V.COP;  EMA  V  STATE  
 
IF  HE  IS  REPRESENTED  BY  A  COUNSEL,  the  duty  is  dispensed  with  as  the  Lawyer  is  
deemed  to  have  informed  him  accordingly.-­‐  
EDET  VS.  THE  STATE  and    
ADIO  VS  THE  STATE.  
S.288  CPL;  
S.240(1)(A)(III)ACJL.  
 
NB:  even  if  a  no  case  submission  is  overruled  (only  requires  a  prima  facie  case),  the  
accused  can  still  rest  case  on  the  case  of  the  prosecution  because  requires  proof  beyond  
reasonable  doubt  to  convict    
If  accused  chooses  to  say  nothing  in  his  defence,  the  prosecution  and  court  may  comment  
on  his  silence,  but  prosecution  must  not  argue  that  it  amounts  to  an  admission  of  guilt:  
s236(1)(c)  CPCL;  s36(11)  CFRN.  The  court  may  make  any  necessary  inferences  it  thinks  
just.  
Note  s181  EA  2011,  the  court,  prosecution  and  any  other  party  can  comment  but  not  
suggest  guilt  due  to  give  evidence.  The  court  can  draw  inferences  –  Garba  v  State;  s236(1)  
CPCL.  
 
RESTING  THE  ACCUSED’S  CASE  ON  THE  CASE  OF  THE  PROSECUTION    
• This  implies  that  he  is  calling  the  Court  to  convict  or  acquit  him  based  on  the  
evidence  led  by  the  Prosecution.    
• Where  accused  does  not  call  any  witnesses  or  adduce  any  evidence,  then  said  to  
have  rested  its  case  on  the  prosecution.  Court  can  come  to  a  valid  decision  solely  on  
that  basis.    
 • Accused  is  assumed  to  have  accepted  the  evidence  as  truly  and  exactly  stated  by  the  
prosecution:  Akpan  v  State  
• But  important  to  note  Supreme  Court  caution  in  Babalola  v  State  that  this  is  
reckless  for  a  defence  counsel  where  there  are  compelling  evidence  against  the  
accused    
• The  counsel  to  the  accused  person  would  inform  the  court  and  then  proceed  to  
address  the  court.      
• This  address  is  wider  and  is  expected  to  address  all  issues  concerning  the  case  as  a  
whole  
• After   such   address   by   the   Defence   Counsel,   the   Prosecution   if   represented   by   a   Law  
officer  is  entitled  to  reply.  
• Where  the  case  of  the  Prosecution  calls  for  some  explanation  from  the  accused  and  
the   accused   chooses   to   rest   his   case   on   that   of   the   Prosecution,   the   trial   judge   is  
entitled  to  draw  necessary  inference  from  the  tale  told  by  the  Prosecution.-­‐  
NWEDE  v.  STATE;  
 BABALOLA  v.  STATE  
 
NB:   accused   person   can   tender   documents   through   the   prosecution   witness   in   course   of  
cross-­‐examination  but  in  such  a  case,  cannot  rest  case  on  that  of  the  prosecution  because  
he  would  have  entered  a  defence  
 
WHEN  CAN  AN  ACCUSED  BE  SAID  TO  REST  HIS  CASE  ON  THE  PROSECUTION  
This  occurs  when;  
•  He  refused  to  call  any  witness    
• nor  give  evidence  in  his  trial.    
 
 
WHEN  IT  IS  ADVISABLE  FOR  AN  ACCUSED  TO  REST  CASE  ON  THE  PROSECUTION’S  
CASE  
 
1. A  no  case  submission  was  wrongly  overruled    
2. The   prosecution’s   case   is   manifestly   weak   that   no   Court/Tribunal   can   possibly  
convict  on  it.  EMEDO  VS.  THE  STATE.  
 
 
WHEN   IT   IS   NOT   ADVISABLE   FOR   AN   ACCUSED   TO   REST   CASE   ON   THE  
PROSECUTION’S  CASE  
When  there  is  overwhelming  evidence  against  the  accused.  -­‐BABALOLA  V.  THE  STATE.        
 
DUTY  OF  THE  COURT  BEFORE  CONSIDERATION  OF  AN  ACCUSED’S  REQUEST  TO  REST  
CASE  
 
The   court   should   consider   the   whole   case   of   the   Prosecution   including   credibility   of  
witnesses  and  weight  to  attach  to  evidence  before  delivering  judgment  after  the  accused  
has  rested  his  case  on  that  of  the  Prosecution.-­‐  
AKPAN  v.  STATE  
 
DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  NO  CASE  SUBMISSION  AND  RESTING  CASE  ON  PROSECUTION  
CASE  
 
1. Where  a  no  case  submission  is  overruled,  the  accused  is  given  leave  to  enter  his  
defence.   BUT   where   the   accused   rests   his   case   on   that   of   the   Prosecution;   the  
accused   has   no   further   opportunity   of   calling   witnesses   or   to   enter   upon   his  
defence.  
2. Resting   case   is  used  where  defence  alleges  that  there  is  INSUFFICIENT  EVIDENCE  
to  warrant  a  conviction  but  no   case   submission   is  used  where  there  is  NO  PRIMA  
FACIE  EVIDENCE  linking  the  accused  person  to  the  crime.  
 
COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  FOR  THE  DEFENCE  
SECTIONS  241  CPL,  192  CPCL,  269  ACJL  
• This  arises  at  the  end  of  the  case  for  the  Prosecution  i.e.  after  the  re-­‐examination  of  
all   the   Prosecution   witnesses,   the   Prosecution   may   close   its   case   in   this   manner  
thus,  
“My   Lord,   the   Prosecution   wishes   to   close   its   case”   or   My   Lord,   that   is   the   case       the  
Prosecution”.  
• The   accused   person   may   commence   with   an   opening   address   by   giving   a  
summation  of  the  case  for  the  defence,  its  witnesses  and  evidence  to  be  adduced.  
• In   practice,   the   defence   usually   dispenses   with   an   opening   address   and   simply  
proceeds  by  calling  his  first  witness.  
 
 
 
THE  DEFENCE  OF  ALIBI    
• The  accused  must  prove  that  because  he  was  at  some  other  place  it  was  impossible  
for  him  to  have  committed  the  crime  he  is  charged  with.  –  
ODIAKA  VS.  THE  STATE.    
• It  is  to  be  raised  at  the  earliest  stage  of  investigation  otherwise  it  may  be  
disregarded.    YANOR  VS.  THE  STATE    
NDIDI  VS.  THE  STATE.      EX-­IMPROVISO  RULE  
This  is  a  situation  where  the  prosecution  at  the  close  of  defence  may  with  leave  of  court  call  
or  recall  witnesses  out  of  the  usual  order  of  proceedings  (PW-­‐DW-­‐FA)-­‐  
S.  241  of  the  ACJL,    
S.  289  of  the  CPL    
 S.  194  of  the  CPCL.    
 
CONDITIONS  FOR  RELIANCE  ON  THE  EX  IMPROVISO  RULE  BY  THE  PROSECUTION  
a. It  must  come  AT  THE  END  of  the  defence  case  
b. LEAVE  OF  COURT  MUST  be  sought  by  prosecution  
 c. The  defence  must  have  raised  a  NEW  MATTER  which  human  ingenuity  could  not  
have  foreseen  (could  could  not  have  reasonably  foreseen)  
ONUOHA  VS.  THE  STATE  and  
BALA  VS.  COP.    
 
LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  EX  IMPROVISO  RULE  
• The  rule  will  not  apply  to  the  DEFENCE  OF  ALIBI-­‐ONUOHA  V.  STATE  (SC)  
• The  evidence  of  the  PROSECUTION  witness  must  only  be  used  to  REBUT  the  NEW  
evidence  adduced  by  the  defence  –  BALA  V.  COP  
 
OPTIONS  OPEN  TO  THE  PROSECUTION  WHEN  THE  RULE  ARISES  
• The  Prosecution  in  that  case  may  with  the  leave  of  Court  be  allowed  to  call  
witnesses  in  rebuttal  of  such  new  evidence  led  by  the  defence.    

• The  Prosecution  may  be  allowed  to  respond  on  point  of  Law  by  way  of  a  Reply  

S.  194  of  the  CPCL  (NORTH  ONLY)  

NB:  CPCL  permits  AG  to  apply  and  call  additional  witnesses.  This  is  not  the  same  as  
the  ex-­improviso  rule    
VISIT  TO  THE  LOCUS  IN  QUO  (THE  SCENE  OF  AN  OFFENCE).    
If  court  is  satisfied  that  there  is  need  to  inspect  immovable  real  evidence  by  the  Court  for  
the  proper  determination  of  the  case,  then  the  court  will  adjourn  and  continue  proceedings  
there  or  adjourn  and  proceed  to  view  and  return  to  court.      
SS.  127  of  the  Evidence  Act,    
S.  205  of  the  ACJL,    
S.  207  of  the  CPL  and    
S.  243  of  the  CPCL.  
 
WHEN  CAN  A  VISIT  TO  THE  LOCUS  BE  CONDUCTED  
It  may  be  conducted  on  the  application  of  the  parties  or  the  Court  suo  motu:  Unipetrol  
v  Adireje,  Ehikioya  v  COP  
 
It  can  be  made  at  any  time  before  judgment-­‐ARUTU  V.  R  (done  after  final  address).  But  the  
earlier  the  better  as  it  is  to  assist  the  court  to  come  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  matter.    
 
PROCEDURE  FOR  THE  CONDUCT  OF  A  VISIT  TO  THE  LOCUS  
IN  QUO  
There  are  two  (2)  ways  as  follows:    
1. The  Court  may  adjourn  to  the  locus  to  inspect  and  continue  trial  there  by  taking  
witnesses  in  evidence  and  later  the  Court  will  reconvene  in  the  regular  Court  to  
continue  the  trial,  without  recalling  the  witnesses.  –  
S.  127(2)  (a)  of  the  Evidence  Act  
 COP  VS.  OLAOPA.  
  
2. The  Court  will  adjourn  to  visit  the  locus,  take  notes  of  the  things  observed  and  
reconvene  in  Court  to  continue  proceedings  where  it  will  take  the  testimony  of  
witnesses  in  Court.  –  
S.  127(2)  (b)  of  the  Evidence  Act  
R  VS.  DOGBE,  AREMU  V  AG  WESTERN  NIGERIA,  OGUNTOLA  V  STATE  
 
EFFECT  OF  NON-­COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  ABOVE  METHODS-­  
It  will  not  vitiate  trial  unless  such  failure  occasioned  a  miscarriage  of  justice-­    
AREMU  V.  AG  WESTERN  NIGERIA  
 
NOTE-­‐The  accused  persons  must  all  be  present  at  the  locus  criminis:  s207(2)  CPL,  s243  
CPCL,  Adunfe  v  IGP.  Opportunity  to  clarify  uncertainties  and  contradictions.  Not  to  
present  fresh  evidence  different  from  that  already  adduced  at  court.  Note:  no  matter  the  
number  of  accused  persons  or  difficulties,  this  must  be  complied  with.  
However,  non-­‐compliance  will  not  vitiate  the  trial  unless  it  occasioned  a  miscarriage  of  
justice.  ADUNFE  Vs.  IGP  (125  accused  persons  not  taken  and  not  all  were  taken  to  the  
locus)-­‐  APPEAL  DISMISSED(Not  a  miscarriage  of  justice)  –  particularly  if  their  counsel  was  
present  at  the  locus.    
 
LIMITATIONS  ARISING  DURING  VISIT  TO  LOCUS  IN  QUO  
It  is  not  an  opportunity  for  either  of  the  parties  to  present  a  fresh  evidence  different  from  
the  one  already  adduced  before  the  court.-­ODICHE  v.  CHIBOGWU  
 
FINAL  OR  CONCLUDING  ADDRESSES  
SECTIONS  241&242  CPL;    
192,  193  CPCL    
273  ACJL  
At  the  end  of  case  for  defence,  accused  or  counsel  can  deliver  a  final  address,  prosecutor  
may  reply.  
This  is  the  summing  up  of  the  facts  and  evidence  adduced  before  the  Court  applying  the  
Law  to  them  and  urging  the  Court  to  return  verdict  in  the  favour  of  a  party.  It  does  not  
constitute  evidence:  R  v  COBOLAH  
 
ORDER  OF  PRESENTING  FINAL  ADDRESS  
• The  accused  is  to  address  the  Court  first,  and    
• Then  the  Prosecution  may  reply  and    
• Accused  has  a  right  to  further  reply  on  POINTS  OF  LAW.  
 
LEGAL  STATUS  OF  FINAL  ADDRESS  AND  REPLY  
The  final  address  and  reply  is  not  part  of  evidence  and  will  not  vitiate  the  trial  if  not  done  
-­‐HASSAN  V.  UNAM.  
 
The  Court  can  write  its  Judgment  before  the  final  addresses  of  the  parties.  –  
NDU  VS.  THE  STATE    
R  V.  COBOLAH.  (this  is  not  ADVISABLE)-­‐  
QUERY-­S.294(1)  CFRN  
 
EFFECT  OF  DENIAL  OF  A  PARTY’S  RIGHT  TO  ADDRESS  BY  A  JUDGE  
Generally,  the  right  to  address  is  a  constitutional  right  of  the  accused  and  the  court  cannot  
deny  the  parties-­‐ISHERU  V.  AYOADE.  
 
However,  where  the  right  to  address  is  denied  and  it  occasioned  a  miscarriage  of  justice,  
the  proceedings  may  be  SET  ASIDE-­‐  OBODO  V.  OLANWU  
 
Both  CPL  &  CPCL  do  not  provide  form  a  final  address  should  take  but  S273(2)  ACJL  states  
that  they  are  expected  to  be  in  writing  and  in  open  court.    
 
PROSECUTION’S  RIGHT  OF  REPLY    
A   prosecutors   right   of   reply   depends   on   the   conduct   of   the   defence   and   the   status   of   the  
prosecutor.  He  could  be  a  law  officer,  police  officer  or  private  prosecutor  
 
A-­LAW  OFFICERS  
• Where   the   Prosecutor   is   a   law   officer,   he   has   an   automatic   right   of   reply   to   the  
final  address  of  the  accused  
Proviso  to  S.  202  CPL  and    
S.243  CPL;  
S.194(3)  CPCL;  
S.271  ACJL  
AWOBUTU  VS.  THE  STATE;    
OSAHON  V  FRN  
• A   Law   Officer   INCLUDE   the   AG,   Solicitor-­general,   DPP,   Pupil/   Senior/principal  
State  Counsel,  even  a  Private  Legal  Practitioner(WITH  FIAT)-­  
S.1  CC;  
S.2CPL;  
STATE  V.OKPEGBORO  
• The  right  of  reply  of  a  law  officer  is  at  his  discretion.    He  cannot  be  compelled  by  the  
court  to  reply  to  a  final  address.      
• He   cannot   be   refused   the   exercise   of   this   right   of   reply:   ADAMU   v.   AG   BENDEL  
STATE  
NOTE-­a  police  officer  who  is  a  legal  practitioner  equally  has  a  right  of  reply.  
QUERY  (Does  he  need  fiat  UNDER  CPCL  AND  CPCL).  
 
B. POLICE  AND  PRIVATE  PROSECUTORS  
The  right  of  reply  of  a  police  officer  and  a  private  prosecutor  (WITH  AG’S  FIAT)  depends  on  
the  following;  
1. If  no   witness   was  called  for  the  defence  EXCEPT  the   accused   himself   or   a   witness  
testifying   as   to   the   accused’s   character   ONLY   and   accused   does   not   tender  
 any  documents  in  evidence,  then  the  Prosecution  has   NO  right  of  reply.-­‐ACHAJI  
ORS  V.  COP,  s241  CPL  
 
NOTE-­‐  In  the   NORTH,  though  no  reply,  they  may  adduce  evidence  of  the  accused’s  
previous  conviction  -­‐S.194(2)CPCL  
 
2. If  the  defence  introduced  a  new  matter  in  his  address  which  is  not  supported  by  the  
evidence   adduced   in   his   defence,   the   Prosecution   MAY   reply   with   the   LEAVE   OF  
COURT.-­‐  
S.194  (1)  of  the  CPCL,  
 S.  241  of  the  CPL  and    
S.  269(1)  of  the  ACJL.    
 
3. If  the  accused  called  witnesses  other  than  as  to  character  or  tenders  any  document  
not   relating   to   character   in   support   of   his   case,   the   Prosecution  SHALL   have   a   right  of  
reply.  STATE  VS.  SANUSI,  s242  CPL,  s194(1)  CPCL  
 
For   the   purposes   of   determining   a   right   of   reply,   testimony   of   the   accused   is   not   treated   as  
testimony  of  witness  to  enable  prosecutor  acquire  a  right  of  reply:  ACHAJI  V  POLICE  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Week  17:  JUDGMENT  AND  SENTENCING    

MEANING   OF   JUDGMENT-­A   judgment   is   the   final   determination   of   a   court   of   competent  

jurisdiction   upon   matters   submitted   to   it.   It   is   the   conclusion   of   law   upon   facts   found   or  
admitted   by   the   parties   or   upon   their   default   in   the   course   of   the   case.   The   judicial  
determination  of  a  case  after  consideration  of  evidence  in  the  case  
 
THE  FORM  AND  CONTENT  OF  A  VALID  JUDGMENT-­  
S.245  CPL;  S.275  ACJL;  S.268&269  CPCL  
1. A  valid  judgement  must  be  in  writing  before  delivery  to  open  court  
268(1)  CPCL    

279  ACJL.    
STATE  v  LOPEZ  [1968]1  All  NLR  356.  
 But  Proviso  to  s245  CPL:  magistrate  is  allowed  to  deliver  an  oral  judgment.  
(provided  that  (a)  records  briefly  in  the  book  his  decision  thereon  and  where  
necessary  his  reasons  for  such  decision  and  delivers  an  oral  judgment,  or  (b)  
records  such  information  in  a  prescribed  form.  This  is  because  the  magistrate  court  
sits  on  some  many  cases  (as  a  court  of  summary  jurisdiction)    

But  under  S268  &  269  CPCL  and  275  ACJL,  magistrate  cannot  deliver  oral  judgment  
 
2. Every  valid  judgement  must  contain  the  point  or  points  for  determination.    

sections  245  CPL,  

269  (1)  CPCL  and    

279  ACJL,    
AIGBE  v  STATE  [1976]  NMLR  84.    

3. It  must  contain  the  decision  of  the  court  on  each  point  for  determination:    
SECTIONS  245  CPL,  269  (1)  CPCL  and  279  ACJL  
 

4. It  must  show  whether  or  not  the  prosecution  has  been  able  to  prove  the  existence  of  
the  essential  ingredients  of  the  offence.    

ONAFOWOKAN  v  THE  STATE    

YESUFU  v  I.G.P  [1960]  LLR  150.  
 
5. It  must  contain  the  reasons  for  the  decision  of  the  court.  See  sections  245  CPL,  
269(1)  CPCL  and  279  ACJL.    
The  court  must  derive  its  reasons  from  the  evaluation  of  the  evidence  as  they  relate  
to  law  and  facts  and  make  findings.  
AKIBU  v  OPALEYE  [1974]  
WILLIE  JOHN  v  THE  STATE  [1967]  

 
6. A  valid  judgment  must  be  dated  and  signed  or  sealed  by  the  Judge  or  Magistrate  
immediately  after  delivery    
sections  245  CPL,    
 269  (1)  CPCL  –  requires  sealing  
 279  ACJL  

 
AJAYI  v  THE  STATE  [1978]  1  LRN  260,    
OBAREKI  v  THE  STATE  [1982]  2  NCR  63,  
OSAYANDE  v  THE  STATE  (1985)  3  S.C.  154.  

In  magistrate  court,  after  he  delivers  judgment,  tells  counsel  that  they  can  appeal  within  30  
days.  Sometimes,  magistrate  signs  after  this  statement  but  this  statement  doesn’t  form  part  
of  the  judgment.  Court  held  this  does  not  invalidate  the  judgment.  
NOTE(EXAMS)-­‐Generally,  every  valid  judgement  must  meet  all  these  requirements  to  be  
valid  except  for  an  oral  judgement  of  a  Magistrate  in  the  South  (excluding  Lagos  State)  
which  need  not  contain  the  point  for  determination.  See  sections  245  CPL,  279  ACJL.  

Failure  to  comply  will  make  such  judgment  invalid.    

WHAT  IS  AN  ORAL  JUDGMENT?  

Any   Judgment   PRONOUNCED   IN   open   court   before   reduction   into   writing-­‐   STATE  
V.LOPEZ(CPCL);  R  V.  FADINA  

FORMAT  OF  JUDGMENT  

There  is  no  required  format  that  a  judgment  must  take.    What  is  important  is  that  all  salient  
points  must  be  contained  therein-­‐ONUOHA  v.  STATE.  
 
FORM  OF  A  VALID  JUDGMENT    
 
1. An  oral  judgment  which  is  subsequently  reduced  into  writing  remains  an  oral  
judgment.    R  VS.  FADINA  (judgment  delivered  from  notes)  ;  
UNAKALAMBA  V.  COP  
2. It  must  capture  all  the  issues  raised  and  the  Law  applied  to  the  issues  and  how  the  
issues  are  resolved-­‐ONUOHA  VS.  STATE  
3. A  judgment  dictated  to  a  stenographer  OR  typist  does  not  constitute  a  written  
judgment-­‐OKORUWA  VS.  THE  STATE.  
4. A  judgment  must  contain  reasons  for  his  decision-­‐  
STATE  V.AJIE  
;WILLIE  JOHN  V.  STATE  
5. A  Judge  cannot  deliver  his  judgment  and  reserve  the  reasons  till  another  date.    
R.VS  FADINA    
6   The  Judge  must  convict  the  accused/defendant  in  the  judgment  before  sentence.  
BANKOLE  VS.  STATE    
YESUFU  VS.  IGP    
 7. The  Judge  is  to  formally  convict  and  sentence  the  accused  on  each  Count  of  which  the  
accused  was  found  guilty.    AIGBE  VS.  STATE;  OTTI  V.I.G.P;  WILLIE  JOHN  V.STATE  
8. Judgment  must  not  be  dated  and  signed  after  ancillary  orders  made  in  a  judgment.-­‐
OBAREKI  V.STATE(this  is  not  advisable)  
 
 
WHEN  CAN  A  JUDGMENT  BE  WRITTEN  
• A  judgment  may  be  written  after  the  close  of  evidence  but  it  cannot  be  delivered  
before  the  final  addresses  are  made.-­‐R.  V.  COBOLAH  
• This  is  because  a  final  address  is  not  regarded  as  part  of  evidence  before  the  Court.    
• Also,  it  is  a  Constitutional  provision  that  judgment  is  to  be  delivered  within  90  days  
after  the  Final  address.  -­‐S.  294(1)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
 
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  TO  COMPLY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF  A  VALID  JUDGMENT  
A  failure  by  the  trial  court  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  a  valid  judgment  as  provided  
for  in  
SS  245  CPL,  269  CPCL,  275  ACJL  will  result  in  the  judgment  being  nullified.  
OKORUWA  v.  STATE:  
SHINFIDA  v.  COP  
NOTE-­‐Upon  nullifying  such  judgment,  the  appellate  court  may  order  a  RETRIAL  (Yahaya  v  
State:    where  the  evidence  before  the  court  that  it  will  not  be  right  to  allow  the  accused  to  
go   free,   where   it   will   not   occasion   miscarriage   of   justice)   or   discharge   and   acquit   the  
convict  depending  on  the  facts  –  AJAYI  v.  ZARIA  NATIVE  AUTHORITY  (e.g.  that  sentence  
to  be  imposed  would  lapse  by  the  time  the  accused  is  retrialed)    
 
NB-­  Under  the  CPCL,  the  substance  of  the  judgment  shall  be  explained  to  the  accused  in  
the   language,   he   understands   and   the   accused   is   entitled   to   be   present   to   hear   the  
judgment:  S.  268  (2)  CPCL      
 
However   absence   of   the   accused   on   the   day   of   the   judgment   does   not   invalidate   the  
judgment:  S.  268(3)  CPCL  
 
TIME  LIMIT  FOR  DELIVERY  OFJUDGMENT    
A  judgment  must  be  delivered  not  later  than  90  days  after  the  adoption  of  final  
addresses,  inclusive  of  the  date  of  its  adoption-­‐S.  294(1)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  
amended.  Constitution  prescribes  this  because  reasons  for  the  judgment  will  include  the  
judge’s  perception  of  the  witnesses.  If  a  long  time  passes  before  writing  judgment,  he  
would  have  forgotten  his  impression  of  witnesses  
Authenticated  copies  of  the  judgment  are  to  be  given  to  the  parties  within  7  days  of  its  
delivery-­‐S.  294(1)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  amended.    
HOW  IS  THE  TIME  CALCULATED  
Time  is  calculated  from  the  date  of  the  final  address.  Where  there  s  no  final  address,  time  
starts  counting  from  the  ay  when  the  last  witness  testifies.  Where  a  court  BEFORE  
expiration  of  the  90  days  invites  counsel  to  make  a  FURTHER  address  time  starts  
counting  from  date  of  the  further  address-­‐SODIPO  V.  LEMMINKAINEN.  
 
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  TO  DELIVER  JUDGMENT  WITHIN  90  DAYS  
However  if  a  judgment  is  delivered  after  the  90  days,  it  will  not  vitiate  the  trial  unless  the  
delay  has  occasioned  a  miscarriage  of  justice.  -­S.  294(5)  of  the  1999  Constitution  as  
amended.    
MODE  OF  DELIVERY  OF  JUDGMENT  
Generally,   the   judge   who   heard   a   case   from   arraignment   till   delivery   of   final   address  
should  deliver  the  judgment  of  the  court.  
 
If   BEFORE   the   judge   delivers   his   judgment,   he   is   transferred,   elevated,   retired   or  
otherwise  ceases  to  have  jurisdiction,  he  can   no   longer   deliver   a   valid   judgment  in  the  
case-­  IYELA  v.  C.O.P  
 
EXCEPTION  
• However,   where   a   Magistrate   or   a   Judge   has   concluded   the   hearing   of   a   case   and  
written  and  signed  his  judgment,  if  he  is  unavoidably  prevented  from  delivering  
the   judgment,   it   might   be   delivered   and   pronounced   by   another   magistrate   or  
judge  in  his  stead  in  open  court  and  in  the  presence  of  the  accused-­‐  
SECTIONS  251  CPL;    
262  CPCL;  
S.281  ACJL    
AG  FED  v.  ANPP    
 
DELIVERY  OF  THE  JUDGMENT  BY  SC/CA  JUDGES  
Every   Justice   of   the   Court  of  Appeal  or  Supreme  Court   who   sits   on   a   case   must  express  
and  deliver  his  opinion  in  writing  or  in  the  alternative  state  that  he  adopts  the  opinion  
of  any  other  justice  who  delivers  a  written  opinion.    
SECTION  294  (2)  CFRN  1999  
 
NOTE  THE  FOLLOWING:  
• It  is  not  mandatory  that  all  the  justices  must  be  present  when  the  judgment  of  the  
court  is  delivered.  
• Therefore,  while  the  decision  of  the  majority  of  Justices  who  sit  on  appeal  forms  
the  judgment  of  the  court,  the  judgment  of  the  court  shall  be  validly   delivered   by  
ONE  of  the  Justices  who  sits  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  judgment.-­‐  
S  294  (3)(4)  CFRN  
• Where  a  Justice  of  CA  or  SC  is  unavoidably  absent,  his  judgment  or  opinion  may  be  
read  or  delivered  by  another  Justice  of  the  Court.  
• The  judgment  or  opinion  of  a  Justice  of  CA/SC  who  heard  an  appeal  but  had  ceased  
to  be  a  Justice  of  the  Court  when  the  judgment  was  delivered  may  be  PRONOUNCED  
by  any  of  the  other  Justices  of  Appeal  and  it  would  be  valid.  
 SHITTA  BEY  V.AGF  
• If   the   judgment   or   opinion   of   CA/SC   judge   is   DELIVERED   or   READ   on   his   behalf  
AFTER   he  has  been  elevated,   died,   retired,   dismissed   or   ceased   to   be   a   member  
of  that  court,  it  would  be  without  jurisdiction;  hence   null   and   void.-­SHITTA   BEY   V.  
AGF  
 
 
 
AMENDMENT  OF  JUDGMENT  
Generally,   after   the   delivery   of   a   judgment,   the   Judge   or   Magistrate   cannot   amend   his  
judgment   because   the   judge   becomes   functus   officio   after   delivery   of   his   judgment   but  
exception  in  s275,  309,  317  CPCL  
 
A  judge  may  only  amend  his  judgment  where:  
1.   Before   the   execution   of   a   sentence   of   caning,   medical   opinion   reveals   that   the  
offender   is   not   in   a   fit   state   of   health.     An   amendment   may   substitute   any   other  
sentence  which  the  court  could  have  passed  at  the  trial-­‐S.  309  CPCL(north)  
2.   Upon  a  conviction  for  contempt  in  the  face  of  the  court,  court  may  in  its  discretion  
discharge   the   offender,   the   punishment   where   the   offender   complies   with   the  
request  of  the  court  or  tenders  an  apology-­S,  317  CPCL-­    

There  is  no  equivalent  provision  on  this  in  the  CPL  but  it  is  applicable  in  the  CPL  states.  
3.   There  is  need  to  correct  a  clerical  error-­‐S.  275  CPCL(MAY  APPLY  TO  CPL/ACJL).  
 
Apart  from  the  three  circumstances  mentioned  above,  a   judge   cannot   amend   any   other  
error  however  trivial.      
 
To   do   so   will   be   unlawful   because   once   the   judge   has   delivered   his   judgment   he  
becomes  functus  officio  -­‐  UNAKALAMBA  v.  STATE;  BAKARE  V.  STATE.  
 
NB  ==#  Where  a  Judge  passes   a   death   sentence  without  directing  in  what  manner  the  
sentence  will  be  carried  out,  it  is  a  mere  irregularity  which  may  be  amended  by  the  Judge  
after  delivery  of  judgment-­‐GANO  v.  STATE  
 
CONVICTION  
• The  judgment  of  the  court  must  end  with  a  finding  of  guilty  or  not  guilty.  
 
MEANING  OF  CONVICTION-­  
A  conviction  is  an  act  of  a  court   of   competent   jurisdiction  adjudging  a  person  to  be   guilty  
of  a  punishable  offence  whether  the  penalty  is  imprisonment,  fine  or  binding  even  to  be  
of  good  behaviour-­‐YALEKHUE  v.  OMOREGBE.  
 
NOTE  THE  FOLLOWING  
 • The  judgment  of  a  court  MUST  convict  the  accused  before   he   is   sentenced  -­‐  R  v.  
EKPO  
• Once   it   is   clear   from   the   evidence   and   findings   of   the   trial   court   that   the   accused  
person  committed  the  offence  charged,  failure  to  record  the  conviction  or  sentence  
is  a  mere  irregularity  which  may  be  remedied  by  the  appellant  court.  
ONYEJEKWE  v.  THE  STATE  
• However,   it   is   important   that   the   conviction   must   be   expressly   stated   on   the  
records  or  discernible  from  the  records.      
• Failure   to   enter   a   conviction   before   sentence   may   invalidate   the   judgment-­‐
ADAMU  &  ORS  v.  THE  STATE  
• Where   an   accused   person   is   charged   and   tried   for   more   than   one   count   of  
offences,   or   several   accused   persons   are   charged   for   one   or   more   counts   of  
offences,  the  court  must  deliver   a   verdict   in   respect   OF   EACH   COUNT   OR   EACH  
ACCUSED  PERSON  as  the  case  may  be-­‐  OYEDIRAN  &  ORS  v.  THE  REPUBLIC  
•  A   trial   court   must   pronounce   its   sentences   SEPARATELY   on   ALL   the   counts   of  
offence  in  a  case  -­‐  BANKOLE  v.  STATE.  
 
CONVICTION  FOR  AN  OFFENCE  NOT  EXPRESSLY  CHARGED  WITH    
SECTIONS  169-­179  of  the  CPL,    
S.  217-­219  of  the  CPCL,  
 S.  160-­171  of  the  ACJL  
 
Generally,   no   person   can   be   pronounced   guilty   for   an   offence   with   which   he   was   not  
expressly  charged.-­S.  36(6)(a)  CFRN.  
 
EXCEPTIONS/CIRCUMSTANCES  
1. Where   an   accused   person   charged   with   a   grave   offence   is   convicted   for   a   lesser  
offence   where   the   evidence   before   the   Court   could   not   sustain   the   offence   he   is  
charged   with   and   there   is   sufficient   and   overwhelming   evidence   in   support   of   the  
lesser   charge.   The   particulars   constituting   the   lesser   offence   are   carved  
out/subsumed   in   the   particulars   of   the   offence   charged:   s179   CPL,   218   CPCL,   166  
ACJL  
UGURU  v.  STATE;  
NWACHUKWU   v.   STATE:   charged   for   armed   robbery   but   Ct   found   offence   of  
robbery  
MAJA  v.  STATE  
(TORHAMBA  V.  IGP-­Red  pencil  rule)  
NOTE-­   the   lesser   offence   must   be   of   a   kindred   offence   with   the   one   the   accused   is  
charged  with.  
An  accused  can  be  convicted  of  a  lesser  offence:  Babalola  v  State  (1989)  
2. When  an  accused  person  is  convicted  for  conspiracy  to  commit  the  offence  although  
he  was  not  found  guilty  of  the  substantive  offence-­‐  BALOGUN  v  AG  OGUN  STATE  
3. Every   attempt   to   commit   an   offence   is   punishable   by   trial   court   even   where   the  
defendant  is  not  expressly  charge  attempting  to  commit  the  said  offence.-­‐  
 Ss.  169  CPL,  
S.  219  CPCL;  
HONG  v.  THE  STATE.  
4.  A   person   charged   for   any   of   the   offences   of   stealing,   obtaining   property   by   false  
pretences,  obtaining  money  by  fraud  or  receiving  stolen  property  may  be  convicted  
for  any  of  them  in  the  alternative.      
 SS.  173  &  174  CPL,  S.  217  CPCL  
5. A   person   charged   with   rape   or   defilement   of   a   girl   UNDER   13   YEARS   may   be  
convicted  for  indecent  assault.    
S.  175  CPL    
illustration  “C”  to  S.  217  CPCL  which  uses  the  term  “gross  indecency”  
6. A  person  charged  with  armed  robbery  may  be  convicted  of  robbery.  
NWACHUKWU  VS  STATE  (supra).  
       SS.  218(1)  CPCL  
                         179  (2)  CPL  
 

THE  PLEA  OF  ALLOCUTUS  OR  MITIGATION    

• After  conviction  or  a  plea  of  guilty,  but  before  sentencing,  the  
Judge/magistrate/registrar  will  ask  the  accused  or  his  Counsel  to  show  reasons  
why  sentence  should  not  be  passed  on  him  according  to  Law.    
• This  will  require  the  accused  to  respond  by  pleading  convincingly  to  the  Court  
why  his  sentence  should  be  reduced  or  that  the  Court  should  temper  justice  with  
mercy  adducing  good  reasons.    
 
That  procedure  is  known  as  the  plea  of  allocutus.    
S.  247  of  the  CPL,  
 S.  197  of  the  CPCL  and  
 S.  281  of  the  ACJL.    
 
The  EFFECT  of  the  plea  is  to  mitigate  the  punishment  to  be  passed  on  the  accused  but  
cannot  result  in  cancellation  of  all  punishment-­‐OGBEIDE  V.COP  

NOTE-­‐For  CAPITAL  OFFENCES  and  offences  for  which  the  Law  has  provided  MINIMUM  
/MANDATORY  penalties,  allocutus  has  NO  EFFECT  because  they  attract  mandatory  
sentences  of  death  and  firing  squad  for  capital  offence.    
EFFECT  OF  FAILURE  OF  COURT  TO  ALLOW  PLEA  OF  ALLOCUTUS.  
However,  failure  of  the  Court  to  observe  this  procedure  will  not  vitiate  the  trial  and  
conviction.    S.  247  of  the  CPL,  S.  197  of  the  CPCL,  S.  281of  the  ACJL.      

POST-­  ALLOCUTUS  PROCEDURE  

1.   Under  the  CPL  after   a   convicted   person  has  pleaded  an  allocutus,  the  Court  proceeds  
to  sentence.  
2.   Under   the   CPCL   after   an   allocutus,   the   Prosecutor   may   produce   evidence   of   any  
previous  convictions  of  the  convicted  person.    Thereafter,  the  court  shall  proceed  to  
sentence  -­  S.  197  (2)  CPCL  
3.   At  the  magistrate  Court  in  the  North,  the  Magistrate  at  this  stage  may  refer  the  
convicted  person  to  a  magistrate’s  court  of  a  higher  grade  or  to  the  High  Court  for  
stiffer  sentence.  S.  257(1)  of  the  CPCL.        

POSTPONEMENT   OF   SENTENCE   -­This  is  where  the  Court  releases   the   accused   on   bail  
pending  when  sentence  will  be  passed  on  him:  S.  250  of  the  CPL,  S.  198  of  the  CPCL  and  
S.  284  of  the  ACJL.  

 
CONSIDERATION  OF  PENDING  CHARGES  AGAINST  AN  ACCUSED  IN  SENTENCING  
S.  249  of  the  CPL,    
S.  258  of  the  CPCL  
 S.  279  of  the  ACJL.        
 
CIRCUMSTANCES-­  
The   Court   can   ONLY   consider   other   Charges   against   the   accused   not   before   it   in  
sentencing  where  
• The  accused  admits  or  pleads  guilty  to  the  other  Charge(s)  before  another  Court  
and  he  wishes  that  it  be  considered,  and      
• The  Prosecution  of  the  other  Charges  in  the  OTHER  COURT  must  consent.  NB-­The  
Attorney-­Generals  of  States  under  the  CPCL  must  also  consent.        
 
AIM-­    
The  aim  of  this  procedure  is  to  save  cost  and  time  of  prosecution.    
 
EFFECT-­The  effect  of  considering  other  Charges  against  the  accused  before  another  Court  
in  his  sentence  before  the  Court  is  that  the  accused  will  not  be  liable  to  be  charged  again  
on  those  offences  considered  UNLESS  his  conviction  is  set  aside  on  appeal.    
 
NOTE-­  The  sentence  to  be  imposed  on  the  offence  convicted  upon  and  the  one  considered  
must  not  be  greater  than  the  maximum  prescribed  for  the  offence  convicted  for.-­S.  182-­
194  of  the  CPL.  
SENTENCING  

MEANING   -­A   sentence   is   the   pronouncement   by   the   court   upon   the   accused   person   after  
his  conviction  in  a  criminal  prosecution  imposing  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted.    
 
 The  penalty  is  usually  in  the  form  of  a  fine,  imprisonment,  caning,  binding  over,  execution.  
 
MODALITIES  OF  SENTENCING  
• The  sentence  of  the  court  must  be  pronounced  in  open  court.  
 SECTIONS   198   CPCL,   248   CPL   and   must   be   pronounced   in   the   presence   of   the  
accused  person  –  ASAKITIPI  v.  THE  STATE  
• The  sentence  of  the  court  must  be  the  sentence  prescribed  for  the  offence  by  the  law  
which  created  it-­‐S.  377  CPL  
• The  court  is  not  under  a  duty  to  inform  the  convicted  person  of  the  reason  for  the  
sentence  of  the  court  -­‐  EKPO  v.  THE  STATE.  
• The   court   must   pronounce   a   sentence   for   every   count   of   offence   for   which   the  
accused  is  convicted-­‐YESUFU  v.  I.G.P  
• The  sentence  of  the  court  takes  effect  immediately.    It  may  in  some  circumstances  be  
postponed  but  it  is  never  suspended.  
• Under   the   CPCL,  a  court  after  conviction  may  retire  to  consider  the  sentence,  but  
the   court   is   enjoined   to   pronounce   the   sentence   in   open   court   at   a   later   date.   S.  198  
CPCL  
•  Under  the  CPL   a   convicted   person   may   be   discharged   upon   self-­‐recognisance   with  
or  without  sureties  on  the  condition  that  he  shall  appear  and  receive  the  sentence  of  
the  court  at  a  future  date  -­  S.  250  CPL  
NB    =Suspended  sentence  is  unknown  to  our  criminal  procedure-­‐STATE  v.  AUDU    
 
CONSECUTIVE  AND  CONCURRENT  SENTENCES  
If  more  than  one  sentence  of  imprisonment  is  imposed  on  the  different  Counts  of  the  
Charge,  it  is  deemed  to  run  consecutively  if  not  specifically  mentioned  to  be  concurrent.  
The  Court  can  also  order  that  the  term  of  imprisonment  run  concurrently  or  consecutively.  
 S.  380  of  the  CPL,  S.  24  of  the  CPCL  and  EMONE  VS.  COP.    
EXCEPTION-­However,  under  Ss.  24  &  312  CPCL,  multiple  terms  of  imprisonment  shall  be  
deemed   to   run   consecutively   UNLESS   the   court   orders   that   they   run   concurrently  
(NORTH  ONLY)  
S380  CPL:  where  magistrate  court  orders  consecutive  sentences,  term  of  imprisonment  
must  not  exceed  4  years  or  the  limit  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  magistrate  court,  whichever  is  
greater.  
 
NOTE-­  
A  CONCURRENT  sentence  is  sentence  imposed  which  is  to  be  served  at  the  same  time  as  
another   sentence   imposed   in   the   proceedings.     The  sentences  start  running  at  the  same  
time  (i.e.  serving  2  sentences  at  the  same  time)  
 
A   CONSECUTIVE  sentence   is   sentence   imposed   which   is   to   be   served   one  after  the  other.    
Each   sentence   begins   at   the   expiration   of   another.   Serving   a   sentence   at   the   end   of  
another.  
 
Mandatory   sentence:   statute   prescribes   certain   sentences   for   an   offence.   CT   has   no  
discretion  
Minimum  sentence:  CT  has  discretion  but  cannot  go  below  this  sentence  
Maximum  sentence:  cannot  sentence  above  the  number  of  years  
DISCRETION  OF  THE  COURT  IN  IMPOSITION  OF  SENTENCES  
The   prescribed   sentence   for   any   offence   is   the   maximum   sentence,   which   the   law  
creating  the  offence  prescribes.    
 
However,  in  imposing  sentences,  a  court  has  discretion   to   impose   a   sentence   less   than  
the  prescribed  punishment  or  a  fine  in  lieu  of  a  sentence  of  imprisonment.-­‐      
SLAP  v.  A  G  FED.  
 
CIRCUMSTANCES  WHERE  THE  COURT  LACKS  DISCRETION  IN  IMPOSING  SENTENCES  
The   discretion   of   the   court   to   impose   a   sentence   which   is   less   than   or   different   from   the  
prescribed  penalty  is  limited  in  three  instances.  
 
a.   MANDATORY  SENTENCES  
The  court  cannot  impose  less  than  a  penalty  prescribed  for  an  offence.      
All  capital  offences  are  punishable  with  the  death  penalty.      
 
Death  penalty  is  the  mandatory  penalty  for  murder,  culpable  homicide  punishable  with  
death,  treason,  armed  robbery.  
 
The   death   penalty   is   not   permissive   but   mandatory   for   capital   offences.     Therefore   a  
court   does   not   have   the   discretion   to   impose   any   other   penalty   upon   conviction   for   a  
capital  offence.  
 
Similarly,   the   mandatory   penalty   for   attempted   armed   robbery   is   life   imprisonment   by  
virtue  of  S.  2(1)  Robbery  and  Firearms  (Special  Provisions)  Act,  Balogun  v.  AG  Ogun  
State  
 
NB-­‐  The  penalty  for  armed  robbery  under  S.402  CC  is  21  years  imprisonment  (for  other  
arms)-­firearms-­DEATH   PENALTY-­S.402(2).   PENAL   CODE   is   life   imprisonment-­s.298  
Penal  Code.  
 
b.   MINIMUM  PENALITIES  
Where  the  law,  which  creates  an  offence,  prescribes  a  minimum  penalty  for  offenders  upon  
conviction,  the  Court  can  impose   a   higher   penalty  but  cannot  impose   a   penalty   less  than  
the  minimum.  
 
Also,  where  the  minimum  penalty  is  a  term  of  imprisonment,  the  court  cannot  impose  a  
fine   in   lieu   of   imprisonment.   Ss.   23   (5)   CPCL,   382   (5)   CPL,   DADA   V.   BOARD   OF  
CUSTOMS  &EXCISE  
 
c.   PENALITIES  WITHOUT  OPTION  OF  A  FINE  
Where   the   law   which   creates   an   offence   prescribes   a   penalty   without   option   of   a   fine,  
upon   conviction,   the   court   does   not   have   the   discretion   to   impose   a   fine   in   lieu   of   the  
penalty.-­‐    DADA  V.  BOARD  OF  CUSTOMS  EXCISE  
  
However,  where  a  law  prescribes  a  penalty  and  is  silent  on  the  option  of  fine,  the  court  
has  the  discretion  to  impose  a  fine  in  lieu  of  the  penalty.-­‐  
Ss.  23(1)  CPCL,    
382  (1)  CPL  
 

TYPES  OF  PENALTY  

1. DEATH  SENTENCE    

• The  death  penalty  is  the  prescribed  punishment  for  persons  convicted  of  capital  
offences  and  it  is  mandatory  to  impose  same  –  
S.  367(1)  &  (2)  and  368  of  the  CPL,    
S.  273  of  the  CPCL,    
S.  305  of  the  ACJL,    
KALU  VS.  STATE  
OKORO  VS.  STATE.        
• Offences   such   as   murder   /culpable   homicide   punishable   with   death,   treason   and  
armed  robbery  are  punishable  with  the  death  sentence.-­‐  
• Terrorism  Act  has  not  prescribed  the  death  penalty  for  terrorism  offences  
• Edo  and  Akwa  Ibom  States  have  prescribed  the  death  penalty  for  kidnapping    
 
MODE  OF  EXECUTION  OF  DEATH  SENTENCE  
The  death  sentence  shall  be  by  hanging-­‐  SECTIONS  367  CPL,  273  CPCL  
 
However,   in   respect   of   armed   robbery   convicts,   the   death   sentence   shall   be   by   firing  
squad:  S.  1  (2)  (a)  (b)  Robbery  &  Firearms  (Special  Provisions)  Act  1985  
 
DRESSING  OF  A  JUDGE  WHEN  DELIVERING  A  DEATH  SENTENCE  
When   pronouncing   a   sentence   of   death,   the   Judge   is   robe   in   red   gown   and   black   cap  
(barret).  
 
FORM  OF  PRONOUNCEMENT  OF  DEATH  SENTENCE-­S.367(2)  CPL  
It  is  passed  using  the  following  words:  The  sentence  of  this  Court  on  you  is  that  you  be  
hanged  on  the  neck  until  you  be  dead  and  may  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  your  soul.    
S.273  CPCL-­“when  a  person  is  sentenced  to  death,  the  sentence  shall  direct  that  he  be  
hanged  by  the  neck  till  he  is  dead”  
  
EFFECT  OF  NON  COMPLIANCE-­  
Failure   of   the   Court   to   comply   with   the   statutory   wordings/   procedure   for   its   imposition   is  
not  fatal-­‐OLOWOFOYEKU  VS.  STATE(CPL).  
 
Such  omission  is  treated  as  an  error  which  a  Court  of  Appeal  will  direct  the  trial  court  to  
rectify  -­‐  GANO  v.  THE  STATE(CPCL)  
 
EXCEPTIONS  WHERE  DEATH  SENTENCE  CANNOT  BE  PASSED:    

i)  PREGNANT  WOMEN  convicted  of  capital  offences  are  to  be  sentenced  to  life  
imprisonment  in  lieu  of  death.    
S.  368(2)  of  the  CPL,  S.  270  of  the  CPCL,  S.  306(2)  of  the  ACJL  and    
S.  211  of  the  Child’s  Rights  Act    
DETERMINATION  OF  PREGNANCY  
• The  determination  of  pregnancy  may  be  ordered   by   the   court  on  its  own  volition  
or  upon  the  allegation  of  the  pregnant  woman  or  the  Prosecutor.  
-­SS.  376  (1)  CPL,  
 271  (1)  &  300  CPCL  
• The  finding  that  a  woman  is  not  pregnant  by  the  trial  court  is  subject  to  appeal;  the  
appellate  court  may  set  aside  the  finding,  quash  the  sentence  of  death  and  substitute  
a  sentence  of  life  imprisonment.  
• The  rationale  behind  this  rule  is  for  the  protection  of  the  unborn  child.    
 
NOTE-­‐Section  221(2)  of  the  Child  Right  Act,  CAP50  LFN  2004  suggest  a  non  –  
institutional  sentence  as  an  alternative  measure  to  imprisonment  instead  of  life  
imprisonment  and  that  where  institutional  sentence  is  necessary  such  women  should  be  
committed  and  held  or  detained  at  a  special  mother  centre    

Section  221(3)  &  (4)  Child  Right  Act.  

ii.  YOUNG  PERSONS-­14  years  and  below  the  age  of  17  years  (under  the  s368(3)  CPL)  
or  18  years  (under  the  s270,  272,  302(3)  CPCL)-­S.2  CYPL/CPL/CPCL  are  not  to  be  
sentenced  to  death  but  detained  at  the  Governor’s  pleasure.    
• The  young  person  shall  be  detained  in  such  a  place  and  under  such  conditions  as  the  
President  or  Governor  may  direct.  
• The   president   or   Governor   may   at   any   time   during   his   detention   discharge   the  
young  person  on  licence.  
NOTE-­‐  The  ACJL  also  has  a  similar  provision  in  section  306  (3)  but  it  applies  to  persons  
below  18years.  
PREROGATIVE  OF  MERCY  
A  death  sentence  is  not  to  be  executed  immediately  it  is  passed.  A  sentence  of  death  shall  
not   be   executed   unless   and   until   the   President,   Governor   or   the   Specified   appropriate  
authority  has  confirmed  it.  
See  s175(2)  CFRN,  212(2)  CFRN  
 
PROCEDURE  
1. The  Court  must  send  a  signed  report  to  the  Committee  on  Prerogative  of  mercy  in  
the  Ministry  of  Justice  of  the  Federation/  State  to  decide  if  it  is  to  execute  it  or  not  or  
that  the  punishment  be  reduced  or  pardoned-­‐S.368(3)CPL;  S.272(2)  CPCL  
2. The  report  must  be  accompanied  by    
• A  certified  true  copy  of  the  record  of  proceedings  at  the  trial;  
• The  certificate  of  death  sentence-­‐section  371(1)  of  the  CPL;  section  294(1)  
of  the  CPCL.  

3. The   Minister   or   Commissioner   (AG),   as   the   case   may   be,   shall   consider   the   report  
made  by  the  trial  court  in  respect  of  the  convicted  person.  
4. The  report  is  referred  to  the  committee  responsible  for  exercising  prerogative  
of  mercy  
5. The  Attorney-­‐General  may  recommend  to  the  Governor  or  President  after  
considering  the  report  of  the  Advisory  Council  that  –  

• The  sentence  should  be  commuted  to  imprisonment  for  life;  or  

• The  sentence  should  be  commuted  to  any  specific  period;  or  

• The  convicted  person  should  be  otherwise  pardoned  or  reprieved.  

6. The  death  sentence  will  now  be  subject  to  confirmation  by  the  president  or  
Governor.  
7. Where  the  convicted  person  is  not  pardoned  or  reprieved,  the  death  sentence  
pronounced  upon  the  convict  must  be  carried  into  effect  –  section  371F  of  the  CPL;  
section  298  of  the  CPCL.  
NOTE-­‐  An  application  for  prerogative  of  mercy  shall  not  be  made  to  the  Supreme  Court.  
OKEKE  v  THE  STATE.  
ADVISORY  COUNCILS  ON  PREROGATIVE  OF  MERCY  

There  are  Advisory  Councils/committees  on  the  Prerogative  of  Mercy  in  each  of  the  States  
of  the  federation.  They  are  part  of  the  Ministry  of  justice.  
In  respect  of  federal  offences,  the  National   Council   of   States  is  the  body  responsible  for  
exercising  the  Prerogative  of  Mercy.  

ROLE-­  

The   powers   of   the   President   are   to   be   exercised   by   him   after   consultation   with   the   Council  
of  State,  whilst  the  Governor’s  power  shall  be  exercised  by  him  after  consultation  with  the  
Advisory  Council  of  the  State  on  Prerogative  of  Mercy.  
2. IMPRISONMENT    

• This  may  be  with  hard  labour  or  not.  See  S.  377  of  the  CPL,  S.  316  of  the  ACJL.    
• Where   the   court   imposes   imprisonment   but   is   silent   on   whether   it   is   with   or  
without  hard  labour,  it  is  deemed  to  be  with  hard  labour.  
• The  trial  court  may  still  sentence  a  convicted  person  who  is  already  serving  a  term  
of  imprisonment  to  another  term  of  imprisonment.    
•  The   court   may   order   that   the   sentence   shall   commence   at   the   expiration   of   the  
previous  term.  
 
JURISDICTION  OF  THE  HIGH  COURTS  TO  IMPOSE  TERMS  OF  IMPRISONMENT  
The  High  Courts  have  unlimited  jurisdiction  to  punish.    They  are  only  limited  by  the  term  of  
imprisonment  prescribed  by  the  law,  which  creates  an  offence.  
 
JURISDICTION  OF  THE  MAGISTRATE  COURT  TO  IMPOSE  TERMS  OF  IMPRISONMENT  
Magistrates’   courts   are   limited   to   the   punishment   they   can   impose   by   the   magistrates  
courts  Law  of  the  various  states.  
NB   =-­‐A   Magistrate’s   Court   in   the   South   cannot   exceed   the   limit   of   its   jurisdiction   to  
impose  punishment  when  it  passes  consecutive  sentences.  
*  In  the  NORTH,  a  Magistrate’s  court  can  exceed  its  jurisdiction  to  impose  punishment  but  
not  by  more  than  twice  the  limit  when  it  passes  consecutive  sentences.  
 
 
 
WHEN  IS  A  SENTENCE  OF  IMPRISONMENT  EFFECTIVE  
A  sentence  of  imprisonment  takes  effect  from  and  includes  the  whole  day  of  the  date  on  
which  it  was  pronounced.-­‐S.  281  CPL  
Usually,  maximum  punishment  is  prescribed  for  terms  of  imprisonment  but  the  Judge  need  
not  impose  it  all  as  it  can  be  substituted  with  fine.    Once  there  is  power  to  impose  a  term  of  
imprisonment,  the  Judge  can  impose  fine  in  lieu  of  imprisonment.  –  
S.  382(1)  of  the  CPL,    
S.  320  of  the  ACJL  and    
DADA  VS.  CUSTOMS  &  EXCISE  BOARD.    
3. FINES    

This  is  a  monetary  payment  as  punishment.    

S.  389  of  the  CPL,    
S.  74  of  the  Penal  Code  and  
 S.  322  of  the  ACJL..  
Where  the  convict  is  unable  to  pay  the  fine,  he  may  be  ordered  to  be  imprisoned  –  S.  
390(1)  CPL  &  75  Penal  Code.  
Before  the  Court  will  impose  this,  the  financial  means  of  the  offender  when  imposing  fines  
is  considered–  S.  391  CPL;  Goke  v.  IGP.  
 
SCALE  OF  FINES  TO  TERMS  OF  IMPRISONMENT  
• Both  the  High  Courts  and  the  Magistrates  Courts  have  the  discretion  to  order  a  fine  
where  the  law  creating  the  offence  prescribes  only  a  term  of  imprisonment.  
• Where  only  the  payment  of  a  specific  amount  as  a  fine  is  prescribed,  the  courts  upon  
conviction  must  order  the  payment  of  that  fine.  
 
RECOVERY  OF  FINE  BY  DISTRESS-­  
Ss.  398  CPL;    
304  CPCL  
• In  levying  distress,  the  court  may  order  the  sale  of  movable  or  immovable  property  
belonging  to  the  offender  as  well  as  attachment  of  any  debts  due  to  the  offender.  
• Where   the   proceeds   of   the   distress   fails   to   cover   the   full   value   of   the   fine,   the  
convicted   person   shall   be   liable   to   a   term   of   imprisonment   for   the   balance   of   the  
fine.  
• He  is  still  liable  to  pay  the  fine  even  after  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  imprisonment  
for  the  default.  
• Even  after  the  death  of  the  convicted  person,  his  estate  is  still  liable  to  pay  the  fine.  
S.  75  Penal  Code  
4. CANING      
It  can  be  imposed  along  with  or  in  lieu  of  imprisonment.  This  has  been  abolished  in  Lagos  
State.  In  the  South  East,  it  is  retained  only  for  juvenile  offenders.    
 
EXECUTION  OF  A  SENTENCE  OF  CANING  
• No  sentence  of  caning  shall  be  executed  by  instalments.    The  caning  must  commence  
and  end  at  the  same  execution.  
• It  shall  be  done  with  no  more  than  a  light  rod  and  not  exceed  12  strokes  –    
S.386  (2)  CPL  &    
S.  308  (5)  CPCL  
• This   sentence   of   caning   shall   be   carried   out   in   the   presence   of   an   Administrative  
Officer  or  person  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  to  the  Local  Government  –  
Ss.  388  (1)  CPL;    
308  (2)  CPCL  
 • The   execution   of   a   sentence   of   caning   is   subject   to   the   health   condition   of   the  
offender.  
 
STAY  OF  EXECUTION  OF  CONVICTION  ON  CANING  
Where  there  is  an  appeal  against  conviction,  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  canning  shall  be  
stayed  pending  the  determination  of  the  appeal.      
 
An  appeal  shall  be  filed  WITHIN  15  DAYS  from  the  date  of  sentence.  
 
PERSONS  WHO  SHALL  NOT  BE  SUBJECT  TO  CANING  
• The  sentence  shall  not  be  passed  on  a  woman  –    
S.  385  CPL  &    
S.  308  (4)  CPCL    
• It  shall  not  be  passed  on  a  man  45  years  and  above  –  
 S.385  CPL  &    
S.   308   (4)   (c)   CPCL.   But   note   an   amendment   states   that   for   CPCL   cannot   be  
passed  for  men  above  40  years  
• It  shall  not  be  passed  on  a  man  under  sentence  of  death  –  S.308  (4)  (b)  CPCL.  
• It  is  to  be  administered  with  a  light  rod  or  cane  and  not  more  than  12  strokes  to  
be  given.    
 
5. HADDI  LASHING    

This  is  passed  only  on  Muslim  offenders  in  the  North  for  offences  like  adultery,  
defamation,  injurious  falsehood  and  drinking  of  alcohol.    
The  aim  of  the  punishment  is  to  inflict  disgrace/shame  and  not  to  cause  physical  pain  or  
injury.  –  S.  307  of  the  CPCL,    

S.  68(2)  of  the  Penal  Code  and  the  Criminal  Procedure  (Haddi  Lashing)  Order  in  
Council  1960.      

NB-­‐Women  are  not  spared.    

EXCEPTION-­‐  the  health  of  the  person  and  season  of  the  year    
THE  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  CANNING  AND  HADDI  LASHING  
1. Caning  is  provided  for  both  in  the  North  and  South,  that  is,  it  is  contained  in  the  CPL  
and  CPCL  except  as  abolished  in  Lagos  while  Haddi  Lashing  is  contained  only  in  the  
CPCL  and  applicable  only  in  the  North.  
2. Canning  is  enforceable  against  all  classes  of  persons  irrespective  of  their  religion  
while  Haddi  Lashing  is  enforceable  only  against  Muslims  in  the  North.  Section  307  
(2)  CPCL.  
3. Canning  is  not  prescribed  for  any  specific  offence  but  the  court  may  consider  the  
prevalence  of  the  crime  within  its  jurisdiction  or  the  antecedents  of  the  offender  
(Section  387  CPL)  while  Haddi  Lashing  is  prescribed  for  specific  offences  in  the  Penal  
Code,  for  example,  adultery,  defamation  or  injurious  falsehood  and  drinking  alcohol.  
Section  307  CPCL.  

4. Canning  is  enforceable  only  against  persons  who  are  liable  to  imprisonment  for  a  
period  of  6  months  or  more.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  such  provision  for  Haddi  
Lashing.  
5. Haddi  Lashing  –unlike  canning  –  is  meant  to  inflict  disgrace,  not  physical  pain  nor  
injury.  
MISCELLANOUS  PUNISHMENTS  
1. Deportation  (only  Aliens  can  be  deported)  see  

 S.  402-­403  of  the  CPL  and    

S.  337  of  the  ACJL.  
(SHUAGBA  V.  MIN  OF  INTERNAL  AFFAIRS)  

2. Compensation  and  restitution  of  stolen  property  to  the  individual  whose  property  
was  stolen.  See    

S.  270  of  the  CPL,  

 S.  365  of  the  CPCL.    
3. Binding  over  to  be  of  good  behaviour.    

S.  300&309  of  the  CPL  and    

S.  24  of  the  CPCL    

4. Police  supervision  order  where  the  convict  is  ordered  to  report  at  a  designated  
Police  Station  regularly.    
S.  3  of  the  Prevention  of  Crime  Act  1958.  
5. Probation  order  releasing  a  convict  e.g.  a  juvenile  under  supervision  of  a  Probation  
officer.    
S.  436  of  the  CPL.    
6. Order  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  prosecution  (private  prosecutors).    

S.  255  of  the  CPL  and    

S.  365  of  the  CPCL.    
 7. Forfeiture-­‐  S.68(1)  b  Penal  code-­applicable  in  cases  involving  property  and  official  
corruption  –  forfeiture  is  to  the  state  
8. Conditional  discharge-­‐S.433  CPL  e.g.  discharged  on  condition  that  he  be  of  good  
behaviour  for  a  certain  period  of  time    
9. Corporal  punishment  

10. Detention  in  a  reformatory/rehabilitation  centre  (applies  to  juveniles)  

11. Community  service  –  only  in  ACJL  e.g.  sweeping  a  particular  public  building  for  a  
period  of  time  
NB:  Restorative  justice  of  Reconciliation,  Restitution,  Reintegration  and  Restoration  is  
encouraged  rather  than  retributive  justice  as  contained  mainly  in  Nigeria’s  Laws.                  

Issues  with  judgment  in  Appendix  3  

• Out  of  time:  s294(1)  CFRN:  judgment  delivered  after  90  days  because  of  the  stroke  
the  judge  suffered  and  it  affected  his  memory.  The  number  of  witnesses  called  (45  
by  first  accused  and  prosecution  called  25)  –  not  possible  to  remember  all  the  
witnesses    

• Judge  did  not  properly  evaluate  evidence  in  reaching  the  conclusion.  He  was  more  
interested  in  superficial  matters  (number  of  witnesses  and  not  their  credibility)  

• Absence  of  the  victim  for  6  months,  not  sufficient  to  prove  death  
• Sentence  of  accused  by  firing  squad  instead  of  hanging    
• Prosecution  failed  to  prove  murder  but  judge  still  decided  to  convict  2nd  accused  
person  because  he  did  not  testify  after  no  case  submission  was  overruled  
• Doctrine  of  res  ipsa  loquitor  was  not  properly  applied  
• Court  did  not  state  proper  notes  on  evidence  or  write  down  judgment  

• Ailment  of  the  judge  affected  his  ability  to  appreciate  evidence  previously  given  
• The  judge  was  biased  by  introducing  religious  matters  into  the  trial  
• Judge  based  on  his  judgment  on  offences  not  proved  (conspiracy)  i.e.  cannot  convict  
on  conspiracy  when  the  particular  offence  was  not  proved.    
• Possible  to  be  convicted  on  one  credible  witness  or  discharged  due  to  one  witness  
(so  the  number  of  witnesses  is  not  relevant  but  the  weight  of  the  evidence  
• Suggesting  guilt  of  accused  based  on  silence  was  not  proper  (181  EA  2011).  Cannot  
base  judgment  on  the  mere  silence  of  the  accused    
• First  accused  was  convicted  of  conspiracy  but  not  sentenced  
 • Second  accused  was  sentenced  but  not  convicted  
• Whole  trial  is  a  nullity  because  case  is  in  the  North  and  accused  was  charged  with  
murder  (an  offence  not  known  to  law).  He  should  have  been  trialled  for  culpable  
homicide  not  punishable  with  death.  
• Not  sure  about  the  sanity  of  the  judge  
• Judge  did  not  write,  sign  or  date  judgment      
• Did  not  state  the  points  for  determination  

• Nor  did  he  state  his  opinion  on  each  point  for  determination  
• Stating  incorrect  points  of  law  e.g.  6  months  is  not  reasonable  time  to  presume  
someone  dead  (EA  2011  is  7  years);  also  issue  with  his  understanding  of  res  ipsa  
loquitor    
• Even  the  addition  of  caning  as  punishment  is  absurd  and  bizarre    

 
 
WEEK  18-­  APPEALS  

MEANING-­Appeal  is  the  process  of  seeking  to  reverse  the  decision  of  the  trial/lower  Court  
on  the  basis  of  facts,  Law  or  mixed  Law  and  facts.    
TYPES  OF  APPEALS  

1. APPEALS  AGAINST  FINAL  DECISION  an  appeal  against  the  final  decision  of  a  court  
is  an  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  court.  
2. INTERLOCUTORY   APPEALS-­-­   An   appeal   against   an   interim   order   of   a   court   is   an  
interlocutory  appeal.-­‐  The  court  must  rule  on  such  applications  or  objections.    
 
CONDITION  PRECEDENT  FOR  BRINGING  APPEALS  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS  
• Before  a  person  can  file  an  appeal,  he  must  have  a  Right  of  Appeal.  
• An  appeal  may  be  as  of  right  or  only  with  the  leave  of  the  court    
Ss.  241  &  242  CFRN  
• Right  of  appeal  must  expressly  be  stated  in  a  statute:  THE  STATE  V.  ADIO  
• A  superior  court  has  an  automatic  inherent  jurisdiction  to  preside  over  appeals  from  
a  Lower  court.    
• It  can  only  hear  an  appeal  if  a  statute  confers  such  jurisdiction  on  it.  NUNKU  V.  IGP  
 
CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT  FOR  FILING  OF  APPEALS  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS  
1. Filing  of  Notice  of  appeal,  
2. Payment  of  required  fees,    
3. Provision  of  recognisance  and  security  for  diligent  prosecution  of  the  appeal  
  
PARTIES  TO  AN  APPEAL  
The  right  of  appeal  is  exercisable  only  by  either  the  Prosecutor  or  the  accused.  
NB(EXAMS)-­‐  A  PARTY  INTERESTED  or  THE  VICTIM  does  not  have  the  right  to  appeal  in  
Criminal  cases.    

See  S.  243(a)  of  the  CFRN  1999  (as  amended)  and  AKINBIYI  V.  ADELABU.  

OTHER  INTERLOCUTORY  PROCEEDINGS  SIMILAR  TO  APPEALS    

 
A-­CASE  STATED  S.  295  CFRN  1999  as  amended  
• This   is   a   procedure   whereby   in   a   criminal   proceeding,   a   question   of   law   which  
depends   on   the   interpretation   or   application   of   the   Constitution   is   referred   to   a  
higher  court  for  an  opinion.  
 
WHEN  CAN  A  CASE  BE  STATED?  
• For   cases   pending   before   the   State   High   Courts,   Federal   High   Courts   and   the  
Court  of  Appeal,  a  case  can  only  be  stated  in  the  course  of  criminal  proceedings  
in  that  case.  
• For  cases  tried  by  Magistrates’  Courts,  the  court  may  state  a  case  any   time   before  
judgment   or   after   judgment   only   upon   the   application   of   the   Attorney   –  
General.  
a.   in  respect  of  a  case  in  which  no  public  officer  is  a  party;  and  
b.   within  6  months  from  the  date  the  judgment  was  delivered.  
 
 
WHO  CAN  INITIATE  “CASE  STATED”  
A  case  may  be  stated  at  the  instance  of  the  following:  
i.   The  Attorney  –  General  
ii.   The  accused  persons  and  
iii.   The  Court  on  its  own  volition.  
S.  295  CFRN;  
R  v.  EZE  
 
DUTY  OF  THE  COURT  WHEN  A  CASE  STATED  APPLICATION  IS  MADE  
When   the  application   for   case   stated   is   made  by  either  of  the  parties,   the   trial  court   is  
under  a  duty  to  state  a  case  for  the  superior  court.      
It   is   immaterial   that   the   trial   court   is   of   the   opinion   that   there   is   no  substantial  question  
of  law  or  that  it  had  earlier  pronounced  its  decision  on  the  question  of  law.  
 
S.  295  (1)  (2)  (3)  CFRN;  
African  Newspapers  of  Nigeria  Ltd  v.  FRN  
 
CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT  FOR  CASE  STATED  
The  conditions  precedents  for  a  case  to  be  stated  are  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  
FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA  v.  IFEGWU  as  follows:  
 
i.   The  question  must  be  as  to  the  interpretation  or  application  of  the  constitution.  
ii.   The  question  must  arise  in  the  proceedings  in  connection  with  an  issue  before  the  
court  making  the  reference.  
iii.   The  matter  for  reference  must  involve  a  substantial  question  of  law.  
iv.   The  court  making  the  reference  of  the  higher  court  is  not  required  to  and  must  not  
give  an  opinion  of  law  on  the  questions.  
 
CONTENTS  OF  CASE  STATED  
A  case  stated  must  contain  the  following  information:  
a.   The  charge,  summons,  information  or  complaint.  
b.   The  facts  found  by  the  Magistrate/Judge  to  be  admitted  or  proved.  
c.   Any  submission  of  law  made  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  complainant  during  the  trial  or  
inquiry.  
d.   Any   submission   of   law   made   by   or   on   behalf   of   the   accused   during   the   trial   or  
inquiry.  
e.   The  finding  of  an  in  case  of  conviction,  the  sentence  imposed  by  the  court.  
f.   Any   question   of   law   which   the   Magistrate   desires   to   be   submitted   for   the   opinion   of  
the  High  Court  and  
g.   Any   question   of   law   which   the   Attorney   General   requires   to   be   submitted   for   the  
opinion  of  the  High  Court.  
 
2.   PREROGATIVE  WRITS  
These   are   writs   issued   by   the   Courts,   in   the   course   of   proceeding   when   there   is   a   direct  
interference  with  the  rights  or  property  of  an  accused  person.      
They  are  not  issued  as  of  right.      
The  accused  person    must  show  that  his   personal   liberty  or  property   rights  have  been  
violated  by  the  proceedings  or  order  of  a  court.  
 
This  application  may  be  made  in   the   course   of   proceedings   or   after   the   judgment   of   the  
court-­  
STATE  V.  FALADE  &  ORS.  
 
a. HABEAS  CORPUS  
• Habeas  Corpus  means  You  have  the  body.  
• The  purpose  of  this  writ  is  to  order   the   release   from   custody  or  to  procure   the  
attendance  to  court  of  a  person  who  is  unlawfully  detained.  
 
NOTE-­Where  a  person  is   in   lawful   custody  such  as  a  person  detained  on  the  orders  of  a  
competent  court  or  upon  sentence  of  imprisonment,  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  will  not  avail  
him  
Gwaram  v.  Superintendent  of  Prisons;  
 
b.   PROHIBITION  
• This  is  a  writ  of  common  law  origin.      
• It  is  used  by  the  High  Court  in  its  supervisory  role  over  magistrates’  courts  and  
other  tribunals.      
 
By   this   writ,   a   superior   court   prohibits   a   lower   court   from   conducting   proceedings  
which  are  either  not  within  its  jurisdiction.      
 
NOTE-­Thus,  this  order  cannot  be  obtained  from  a  court  of  coordinate  jurisdiction.-­‐  
The  State  v.  Chief  Magistrate  Aboh  –  Mbaise  Exparte  Onukwe.  
 
c.   MANDAMUS  
• This  is  the  opposite  of  writ  of  prohibition.  
• It  was  originally  used  to  check  abuses  of  judicial  powers.    
• It   was   usually   issued   by   a   Superior   Court   to   confine   on   inferior   court   to   a   lawful  
exercise  of  its  prescribed  jurisdiction  or  to  compel  it  to  exercise  its  authority  when  it  
is  its  duty  to  do  so.-­  Will  v.  United  States  
• An   order   of   mandamus   may   now   be   issued   to   compel   a   court,   a   judicial   or  
administrative   officer   to   perform   an   act,   which   is   its   or   their   public,   official   or  
ministerial   duty.-­‐-­‐   Fawehinmi   v.   Akilu   &   Anor,   it   was   held   that   the   order   of  
mandamus   could   be   issued   to   compel   the   AG   Lagos   to   issue   a   fiat   a   private  
prosecutor  to  prosecute  the  accused  persons.  
 
d. CERTIORARI  
• A  writ  from  a  common  law  origin  used  also  by  the  High  Court  in  the  exercise  of  its  
supervisory  function  over  magistrates’  courts.      
• By  this  writ  a  High  Court  may  quash  the  proceedings  order  of  a  lower  court  where  
the   lower   court   has   acted   without   jurisdiction   or   there   is   irregularity   in   its  
proceedings.  
NOTE-­The  writ  of  certiorari  cannot  be  issued  to  question  or  quash  a  legislative  or  
executive   act   because   they   are   nothing   nature   acts   which   are   required   to   be   done  
judicially.  In  THE  STATE  V.  FALADE  &  ORSthe  High  Court  issued  a  writ  of  certiorari  to  
quash  the  conviction  of  the  accused  persons  because  the  trial  magistrate  convicted  then  
without  hearing  their  defence.  
 
CONSTITUTION  OF  COURTS  OF  APPEAL  
• Where   hearing   appeals   from   Magistrates’   courts,   the   High   Court   shall   be   properly  
constituted  by  at  least  one  judge.  
• However,  in  the  North,   two   judges  usually  constitute  the  High  Court  when  the  court  
hears  appeals  on  criminal  matters.-­‐S.  273  CFRN  1999.  
 • When  hearing  appeals  from  the  State   High   Court  or  Fed.   High   Court   the  court  of  
Appeal   shall   be   constituted   by   not   less   than   3   Justice   of   the   Court   of   Appeal.-­‐S.  
273  CFRN  1999.  
• On  appeals  from  Court  of  Appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  not  less  than  5  Justices  of  
the  Supreme  Court  properly  constitute  the  Court.(SC   -­7   justices-­OIC)-­‐PROVISO   to  
S.  234  CFRN.  
NOTE-­There  is  no  right  of  appeal  against  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  
 
PROCEDURE  FOR  APPEALS  IN  CRIMINAL  TRIALS  
The  Trial  Court  from  where  the  appeal  arises  and  the  nature  of  the  appeal  will  determine  
the  proper  procedure  to  make  the  appeal  competent.      
 
A-­APPEALS  FROM  THE  MAGISTRATE  COURTS  TO  THE  HIGH  COURTS    
S.279(1)-­282  C.P.C.;  
 S.28  High  Court  Laws  of  Lagos  State.  
 
 
 
PROCEDURE  
• A  party  willing  to  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  a  Magistrates’  court  must  file  a  
notice  of  appeal.    
• The  Notice  of  appeal  must  be  given  to  the  Registrar  of  the  Magistrates’  Court  
within  30  days  from  the  date  of  the  decision  appealed  against.    
• Leave  of  the  Magistrates’  court  is  required  to  file  the  notice  after  the  lapse  of  30  
days.    
• After  the  conditions  of  appeal  have  been  satisfied  the  Registrar  of  the  Magistrates’  
Court   shall   prepare   and   forward   the   Record   of   proceedings   and   other   documents   to  
the  Registrar  of  the  High  Court.    
• The   registrar   of   the   High   Court   shall   serve   hearing   notices   on   all   parties   to   the  
appeal.    
• At  the  hearing,  Counsel  for  the  appellant  will  argue  only   the   grounds  stated  in  his  
Notice  of  appeal  after  which  the  Counsel  for  the  Respondent  shall  reply.    
NOTE  -­‐where  the  Court  is  of  the  view  that  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  to  interfere  with  the  
decision   of   the   lower   Court,   it   will   simply   dismiss   the   appeal   without   calling   for   the  
Respondent’s  reply.  

FORM  OF  A  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  

The  Notice  of  appeal  must  be  on  the  prescribed  Form  and  signed  by  the  appellant  or  
his  Counsel.  
Notice  of  appeal  may  be  given  in  writing  or  orally  at  the  time  the  Judgment  is  pronounced.  
S.280  C.P.C.  
However,  where  an  oral  notice  is  given  in  the  presence  of  the  other  party,  a  written  notice  
will  no  longer  be  required.    
  
WHEN  IS  THE  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  DEEMED  FILED  

An  Appellant  in  custody  can  give  his  Notice  of  Appeal  to  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  
Prison  and  the  day  he  did  so  is  deemed  the  date  of  filing.  -­‐  EWELIKWU  VS.  STATE.  
TIME  LIMIT  WITHIN  WHICH  AN  APPEAL  CAN  BE  FILED  
The  time  within  which  to  appeal  is  30  days  of  the  delivery  of  the  judgment  for  Final  
judgments    
 14  days  for  interlocutory  decisions    OR    15  days  on  a  sentence  of  canning.  –  S.  281of  
the  CPCL,  S.  68  of  the  Magistrate  Court  Law  of  Lagos  2009.    
 
CONTENTS  OF  A  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  
In  Lagos  State  the  information  required  in  the  Form  1  are  as  follows:  

1. District  of  the  Magistrate;    

2. The  Cause  Number;    

3. Title  or  Parties;    
4. The  Registrar  of  the  Appellate  Court  (Address);    
5. Date  of  giving  the  Notice;    

6. The  offence  of  which  the  accused  was  convicted;    

7. Date  of  conviction  or  order;    
8. Sentence;  

9. Date  of  Sentence;    

10. Prison  where  the  Appellant  is;    

11. Appellant’s  address  for  service  in  Lagos  State;    
12. Counsel  representing  the  Appellant  if  any  and  his  address  for  service;    

13. Grounds  of  appeal;  and    

14. Signature  or  Mark  of  the  Appellant.  See   Order   3   (Part   1)   R.2   HCL   Appeal   Rules  
1994.  
PRESENTATION  OF  APPEAL  CASES  FROM  MAGISTRATE’S  COURT  TO  HIGH  COURT  
• The  presentation  of  cases  here  is  by  oral  arguments.    
• The  Appellant  argues  his  case  first  confining  himself  to  the  grounds  of  appeal.  
• The  respondent  may  reply  only  to  the  grounds  argued  by  the  Appellant.      
 After   Respondent   reply,   the   Appellant   may   respond   to   any   points   made   in   the  
•
Respondent’s  Reply  
 
GROUNDS  OF  APPEAL  
A-­The  Prosecutor  
A   Prosecutor   may   appeal   on   the   ground   that   the   acquittal   or   discharge   of   the   accused   is  
erroneous  in  Law  or  that  the  proceedings  or  any  part  thereof  is  in  excess  of  the  jurisdiction  
of  the  Magistrate.    
S.  57(a)  M.C.L.  2009;    

S.  279(2)  C.P.C.  
In   Lagos,   a   Prosecutor   may   appeal   against   a   Sentence   that   is   below   the   minimum   term  
prescribed  by  Law  or  failure  to  make  an  order  prescribed  by  Law.  
THE  ACCUSED  
The  accused  may  appeal  on  the  following  grounds:  
i. That  the  lower  Court  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case;  

ii. That  the  lower  Court  exceeded  its  jurisdiction;  

iii. That  the  decision  had  been  obtained  by  fraud;  
iv. That   the   case   has   been   heard   or   tried   and   decided   by   or   forms   part   of   the   subject   of  
a  hearing  or  trial  pending  before  a  competent  Court;  or  
v. That   admissible   evidence   has   been   rejected   or   inadmissible   evidence   has   been  
admitted   and   that   there   is   no   sufficient   evidence   to   sustain   the   conviction   after  
rejecting  the  inadmissible  evidence;  or  

vi. That  the  decision  is  unreasonable  and  cannot  be  supported  having  regard  to  
the  evidence;  or    

vii. That  the  decision  is  erroneous  on  points  of  Law;  or  
viii. That   other   specific   illegalities   that   substantially   affect   the   merit   of   the   case   have  
been  committed  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings;  or  
ix. That  the  sentence  passed  on  conviction  is  excessive.  See  S.282(2)  C.P.C.;  Or.2,  (Part  
1)  R.9  HCL  (Appeal)  Rules.  

In  Lagos,  the  following  additional  grounds  are  present:  

i. That  the  Magistrate  was  personally  interested  in  the  case;  or  
 ii. That  the  Magistrate  acted  corruptly  or  maliciously  in  the  case.  Or.2  Pt.1,  R.  9(1)  HCL  
(Appeal)  Rules.  –  
S.  279(2)  &  282(2)  of  the  CPCL  and  
 S.  69  of  the  Magistrate  Court  Law  of  Lagos  2009.    
Note:   an   appellant   may   apply   for   leave   to   file   additional   grounds   or   to   amend   defective  
grounds  of  appeal.  Esoh  V.  Police;  Okonkwo  V.  I.G.P.    
OMNIBUS  GROUND  OF  APPEAL  
The   omnibus   ground   of   appeal   couched   as”   The   decision   of   the   trial   judge   is  
unreasonable  and  cannot  be  supported  having  regard  to  the  evidence”   is   not   a  valid  
ground  of  appeal  in  criminal  trials.-­‐ENITAN  Vs.  STATE.    
 
CAN  A  CONVICT  WHO  PLEADED  GUILTY  HAVE  A  RIGHT  OF  APPEAL?  
Yes.   A   convict   who   pleaded   guilty   to   the   offence   can   still   appeal   against   his   conviction  
especially  where  the  procedure  of  the  Prosecution  calling  expert  evidence  in  prove  of  the  
offence  as  required  by  Law  was  not  complied  with.  -­‐ESSIEN   VS.   KING   and   STEVENSON   VS.  
POLICE  
     
ADMISSIBILITY  OF  ADDITIONAL  EVIDENCE  ON  APPEAL    
Generally,  new  evidence  is  not  admissible  on  appeal  because  of  the  following  reasons:    
1. To  put  an  end  to  litigation    
2. A   successful   party   should   not   be   deprived   of   the   benefits   unless   on   material  
grounds;  
3. A   party   who   obtained   judgment   should   not   face   a   new   case   because   of   the  
appellant’s  failure  to  diligently  prosecute  the  case-­‐ESANGBEDO  VS.  STATE    
 
The  CONDITIONS/EXCEPTIONS  for  the  admission  of  additional  evidence  on  appeal  are  as  
follows:    
1. If  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice    
2. The  evidence  was  not  available  at  the  trial  or  could  not  have  been  adduced  at  trial.    
ARIRAN  VS.  ADEPOJU    
3.   The  evidence  sought  to  be  adduced  on  appeal  must  be  apparently  credible  though  not  
incontrovertible-­‐ARIOLA  &  ORS  v.  C.O.P.  
                   4.Exceptional  circumstances  arise  which  will  not  lead  to  the  rehearing  of  the  case.    
• The  Appellate  Court  may  admit  the  evidence  OR  
•  Refer  it  to  the  trial  Court/Lower  Court  to  take  the  evidence  and  adjudicate  on  it  in  
the  light  of  the  evidence  and  report  its  findings  on  such  evidence  to  the  High  Court.-­‐  
S.  45  &  55  of  the  High  Court  Law  of  Lagos  State.    
 
POSSIBLE  ORDERS  THE  STATE  HIGH  COURT  WILL  MAKE  UPON  HEARING  AN  
APPEAL.  
A-­Appeal  Against  Sentence  only  
Where   appeal   is   against   only   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   Magistrates’   Court,   the   High  
Court  in  its  appellate  jurisdiction  may  
i. Affirm  the  Sentence  
ii. Substitute   any   other   sentence   which   may   be   more   or   less   severe   than   the   former  
sentence  or  different  in  nature.  Section  39  (b)  High  Court  Law,  Lagos,  2004  
 
B-­Appeal  against  conviction  or  Conviction  and  sentence,  the  Court  may  
i. Affirm  the  conviction  or  conviction  and  sentence  
ii. Quash  the  conviction  or  conviction  and  sentence  in  which  case  the  court  may  either  
acquit   or   discharge   the   convicted   person   or   order   a   retrial   by   the   same   Court   or  
another  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction  
iii. Maintain   the   sentence   but   alter   the   findings   upon   which   the   trial   Court   reached   a  
conviction  
iv. Maintain  the  finding  but  reduce  or  increase  the  sentence,  in  which  case  the  High  Court  
CANNOT;   increase  /reduce  the   sentence   beyond   the   maximum  penalty   prescribed  
by   the   law,   which   created   the   offence   which   the   trial   Magistrate   has   jurisdiction   to  
impose.  Nworie  v  COP,  Nwobu  &  Anor  v  COP  
 
C-­Appeal  against  an  Order  of  Acquittal  or  Discharge,  the  High  Court  may  
i. Maintain  the  acquittal  or  discharge  
ii. Remit   the   case   and   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   on   the   order   of   the   acquittal   or  
discharge   to   the   Magistrates’   Court   for   determination,   whether   by   rehearing   or   not,   if  
the  High  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  order  of  the  acquittal  or  discharge  made  by  
the  Magistrates  Court  should  not  have  been  made,    
iii. Give  such  other  directions  as  the  Court  thinks  necessary.  Section  39  (c)  High  Court  
Law,  Lagos  
 
Appeal   that   a   Magistrate’s   Court   failed   to   impose   a   minimum   sentence   or   make   an  
Order  prescribed  by  a  Written  Law,  the  High  Court  may;    
i. Suspend  the  sentence  or  order  made  by  the  Magistrate  Court  
ii. Substitute,  impose  or  make  a  sentence  or  order  prescribed  by  the  Written  Law.    
Section  39  (d)  High  Court  Law,  Lagos  
 
Appeal  from  any  other  Order  made  by  Magistrate’s  Court,  the  High  Court  may;  
i. Maintain  the  order  made  by  the  Magistrate’s  Court  
ii. Change  the  order  made  by  the  Magistrate’s  Court  
iii. Reverse  the  order  made  by  the  Magistrate’s  Court.  Section   39   (e)   High   Court   Law,  
Lagos.  
 
B.APPEALS   FROM   THE   HIGH   COURTS   /FEDERAL   HIGH   COURTS   TO   THE   COURT   OF  
APPEAL.    
The  procedure  to  be  followed  will  be  determined  depending  on  whether  the  appeal  is  as  
of  right  or  needs  the  leave  of  Court  or  it  is  a  double  appeal  or  an  interlocutory  appeal.  
S.240  CFRN    

CIRCUMSTANCES  WHEN  APPEAL  IS  OF  RIGHT  

 Instances  where  the   right   to   appeal  is  as  of  right  from  a  decision  of  the  High  Court/Federal  
High  Court  are  as  follows:    
a. Final  decisions  of  the  High  Court/  Federal  High  Court  sitting  at  first  instance    
b. Where  the  grounds  of  appeal  involves  questions  of  Law  alone    
c. Decision  on  questions  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution    
d. Decisions  on  questions  as  to  whether  any  of  the  provisions  of  Chapter  IV  of  the    
Constitution  has  been  contravened    
e. Decisions  in  which  the  High  Court/Federal    High  Court  imposed  a  sentence  of  death    
f. Where  the  liberty  of  a  person  or  custody  of  an  infant  is  concerned.-­‐See  S.  241(1)  of  the  
1999  Constitution  as  amended.              
 
CIRCUMSTANCES  WHEN  AN  APPEAL  MUST  BE  WITH  LEAVE  OF  COURT  
Appeals  which  must  be  with  the  leave  of  Court  are  as  follows:    
i. Appeals  from  a  decision  made  with  the  consent  of  the  parties    
ii. Appeals  from  decisions  as  to  cost  only  -­   S.   241(2)   (c)   of   the   1999   Constitution   as  
amended.              
iii. DOUBLE   APPEAL  (which  is  an  appeal  coming  from  the  Magistrate  Court  to  the  High  
Court   and   a   further   appeal   to   the   Court   of   Appeal,   not   being   an   appeal   against   the  
decision  of  the  High  Court/  Federal  High  Court  sitting  on  first  instance).    
This   must   be   with   the   leave   of   Court   -­   S.   241(1)   (a)   of   the   1999   Constitution   as  
amended.              
iv. an   interlocutory   decision   appealed   against   on   grounds   of   facts   or   mixed   Law   and  
facts.    
PROCEDURE  OF  APPEAL  TO  THE  COURT  OF  APPEAL  
1. The  appellant  must  file  his  notice  of  appeal  in  the  prescribed  Criminal   Form   1.  See  
2nd  Schedule  to  the  Court  of  Appeal  Rules  2007;  Or.16  R.  3(1)  C.A.R.  
 

• The  Notice  or  application  for  leave  to  appeal  must  be  filed  in  the  High  Court  Registry  
within  90  days  of  the  decision  appealed  against.    
 
2. Where  an  appeal  is  with  leave,  the  appellant  is  allowed  a  further  period  of  14  days  
from  the  date  of  the  determination  of  his  application  for  leave  to  bring  another  
application  for  leave  to  the  Court  of  Appeal(Criminal  Form  2).-­‐Kema  V.  The  State.  
The  grant  of  the  application  is  deemed  to  be  the  notice  of  appeal.  
Order  17  rule  6  court  of  Appeal  rules  2011  
  
3. The  Appellant  is  to  satisfy  other  conditions  for  the  prosecution  of   the  appeal  and  pay  
filling   fees   EXCEPT   for   an   appellant   convicted   of   a   capital   offence   or   appellants  
represented  by  the  Legal  Aid  Council.    
-­‐O.  17  R.  8  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  Rules  2011    
 
4. The   notice   of   appeal   must   be   signed   by   the   appellant   or   his   counsel   and   shall   be  
given   to   the   Registrar   of   the   Fed.   Or   State   High   Court   which   pronounced   the  
decision.  
 

5. The  Registrar  of  the  High  Court  shall  compile  the  record  of  appeal  and  forward  same  
to  the  registrar  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.    
 
6. Parties  to  the  proceedings  are  also  served  with  the  Record  of  Appeal.  

7. Upon   receipt   of   the   Record,   parties   are   required   to   file   their   respective   Briefs   of  
argument  beginning  with  the  Appellant.  

 
8. After  the  exchange  of  Briefs  or  on  the  expiration  of  the  period  allowed  for  the  filing  of  
Briefs,   hearing   notice   will   be   served   on   the   parties   by   the   registrar   of   the   Court   of  
Appeal.  
 

9. On  the  hearing  date,  parties  may  present  oral  arguments  to  emphasise  and  clarify  the  
issues  raised  in  their  Briefs.      

Or.  17  R.  9(1)  CAR;    

Kim  V.  State  
 
10.  A   party   who,   having   been   served   with   a   hearing   notice,   fails   to   present   an   oral  
argument  will  be  deemed  to  have  duly  argued  his  appeal.-­‐Or.17  R.9(4)  CAR.  
 

11. Forty   minutes  is  allowed  on  each  side  for  the  presentation  of  oral  argument  unless  it  
is  otherwise  directed.  Or.17  R.9(3).  CAR.      
TIME  FOR  FILING  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  
COMPUTATION  OF  TIME  
The  time  within  which  to  file  the  Notice  of  Appeal  starts  counting  when  the  Appellant  has  
notice  of  the  decision(judgment)  convicting  him.  -­‐OHUKA  VS.  STATE  
TIME  FOR  FILING  BRIEF  OF  ARGUMENT    
a.  Appellant’s  brief  of  argument  must  be  filed  within  45  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  record  
of  appeal  from  the  FHC/SHC.Or.17  R.2  CAR.  
b.  Respondent’s  Brief  must  be  filed  within  30  days  of  service  of  the  Appellant’s  Brief  on  
him.    Or.17  R.  4(1)  CAR.    
c.  Appellant’s  Reply,  if  any,  must  be  filed  within  14  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  
Respondent’s  Brief  of  argument.    Or.17  R.5  CAR.  
NB-­‐The  Appellant’s  Reply  shall  deal  with  all  new  points  arising  from  the  Respondent’s  Brief  
of  argument.  Or.  17  R.  5  CAR.  
The  number  of  copies  to  be  filed  by  a  party  is  20  copies  each.          

CONTENTS  OF  A  BRIEF  OF  ARGUMENT  

• Heading  of  the  Court;  

• Appeal  number;  
• The  Parties;  

• Title  of  the  Brief;  

• Table  of  content;  
• Introduction  or  Preliminary  Statement;  
• Issues   for   determination.-­‐An   issue   must   be   based   on   the   grounds   of   appeal   or   it   will  
be  struck  out.  -­‐Omodara  V.  State  
• Brief  Statement  of  facts  (summary).    

• Arguments,  based  on  issues  raised.  

• Conclusion.    
• List  of  authorities.  

• Signature,  usually  that  of  the  Counsel.  

• Address  for  service.  
NOTE  -­‐The   contents   of   both   the   Appellant’s   and   the   Respondent’s   Briefs   are   the   same.   The  
contents   are   also   required   to   feature   in   the   Reply   Brief  EXCEPT   the   Statement  of  fact   and  
the  issues  for  determination.  

NOTE-­  A  party  shall  not  be  allowed  to  argue  or  raise  an  issue  that  is  not  contained  in  his  
Brief  of  Argument  during  the  hearing  of  the  appeal.  
CONSEQUENCES  OF  FAILURE  TO  FILE  BRIEF  OF  ARGUMENT  WITHIN  TIME  

• Where   an   Appellant   fails   to   file   his   brief   within   time,   his   appeal   may   be   STRUCK  
OUT.    

Or.  17  R.  10  CAR.    

 

• Where  a  respondent  fails  to  file  his  respondent’s  brief  of  argument  having  been  duly  
served   with   the   appellant’s   brief   of   argument,   he   will   not   be   heard   in   oral  
argument.    Or.  17  R.  10  CAR.  

 
• where  an  Appellant  fails  to  file  a  reply  brief  within  time  he  shall  be  deemed  to  have  
conceded   all   the   new   points   or   issues   arising   from   the   respondent’s   brief   of  
argument.  Or.  17  R.  10  CAR.    

CONSEQUENCE  OF  FAILURE  TO  FILE  A  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  

The  consequence  of  failure  to  file  a  Notice  of  appeal  is  an  order  of  striking  out  of  the  appeal  
for  being  incompetent.  Such  an  appeal  is  null  and  void-­‐  AMUSA  V.  THE  STATE  

EFFECT  OF  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  ON  WRONGLY  HEADED  FORM-­  

A  notice  of  appeal  given  on  a  wrongly  headed  form  is  not  null  and  void.      
It  only  amounts  to  an  irregularity,  which  does  not  render  the  notice  of  appeal  invalid.  

ETUK  UDOH  v.  THE  STATE.  

WHEN  WILL  A  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  OPERATE  AS  A  STAY  OF  EXECUTION  
• Generally,  an  appeal  does  not  operate  as  using  of  execution  of  the  judgment  of  the  
lower  court.  
• Therefore,  after  filing  an  appeal,  an  appellant  may  need  to  apply   for   a   stay   of   the  
execution  of  the  judgment  of  the  court.  
In   an   interlocutory   appeal,   the   Appellant   may   also   need   to   apply   for   a   stay   of  
proceedings.      
 
This  is  usually  necessary  where  the   decision   of   the   appellate   court  may  affect  the  final  
judgment  of  the  trial  court.  
 
SOLE  EXCEPTION-­  an  appeal  against  a  sentence  of  death.  
In   the   case   of   a   death   sentence,   the   filing   of   a   notice   of   appeal   operates   as   a   stay   of  
execution.  
-­  BELLO  v.  A  –  G  OYO  STATE  
 
B-­ APPEAL  FROM  THE  COURT  OF  APPEAL  TO  THE  SUPREME  COURT.  
Appeal   against   the   decision   of   the   Court   of   Appeal   to   the   Supreme   Court   may   lie   as   of   right  
or  with  leave.  S.  233  (2)  &  (3)  CFRN  ’99.  
Appeal  will  lie  as  of  right  in  the  following  cases:  
a) Decisions  in  any  Criminal  proceedings  where  ground  of  appeal  is  on  question  of  Law  
alone;  
b) Decisions   in   any   Criminal   proceedings   on   question   as   to   interpretation   of   the  
Constitution;  
c) Decisions  in  any  Criminal  proceedings  as  to  whether  the  provision  of  Ch.  IV  of  the  
Constitution   relating   to   Fundamental   Rights   has   been,   is   being   or   is   likely   to   be  
contravened  in  relation  to  any  person;  

d) Decisions   in   any   Criminal   proceeding   in   which   any   person   has   been   sentenced   to  
death  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  or  which  the  Court  of  Appeal  has  affirmed  a  sentence  of  
death  imposed  by  any  other  Court;  
e) Such  other  cases  as  may  be  prescribed  by  any  Act  of  the  National  Assembly.-­S.233  
(2)  CFRN  ’99.  
In  other  cases,  appeal  will  lie  with  leave  of  the  Court  of  Appeal.-­  S.  233  (3)  CFRN  ’99.  

PROCEDURE  OF  APPEAL  TO  THE  SUPREME  COURT    

The  procedure  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  is  
substantially   the   same   as   the   procedure   of   appeal   to   the   Court   of   Appeal   except   the  
differences   in   the   periods   for   the   filing   of   the   Notice   of   Appeal   and   the   Briefs   of  
Argument.  -­‐Or.2  of  the  Supreme  Court  Rules  (S.R.C.).  

PERIOD  FOR  FILING  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  

Notice  of  Appeal  must  be  filed  within  30  days  of  the  delivery  of  the  decision  of  the  Court  
of  Appeal  appealed  against.    
 
Interlocutory  decision:  within  14  days  of  the  delivery  of  the  ruling    S.  27(2)  (b)  S.C.A.  
 
EXTENSION  OF  TIME  
  
Application   may   be   brought   to   the   Supreme   Court   for   an   extension   of   time   within   which   to  
file  a  Notice  of  Appeal  where  a  party  fails  to  file  within  time.    S.  31  (4)  S.C.A.      

WHO  CAN  SIGN  A  NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  

 The   notice   of   appeal   or   notice   of   motion   for   leave   to   appeal   shall   be   signed   by   the  
appellant.  
 
The   notice   shall   be   given   to   the   Registrar   of   Court   of   Appeal   who   shall   thereafter  
forward   the   notice   to   the   Registrar   of   the   Supreme   Court.   O.9   R.   3   of   the   Supreme  
Court  Rules  

PRESENTATION  OF  APPEALS  AT  SUPREME  COURT  

Hearing  of  the  appeal  is  by  adoption  of  the  briefs  filed  by  the  parties.  
 
TIME  LIMIT  FOR  FILING  OF  BRIEF  OF  ARGUMENT  AT  THE  SUPREME  COURT  

a.   Appellant’s   brief   ofargument   must   be   filed   within   ten   weeks   of   the   receipt   of   the  
record  of  appeal  from  the  Court  below.-­‐Or.  6  R.  5  (1)  (a)  SCR.  

b.   Respondent’s   brief   of   argument   must   be   filed   within   eight   weeks   of   service   of   the  
appellant’s  brief  on  him.    Or.6  R.  5(2)  SCR.  
c.  Appellant’s  reply,  if  any,  must  be  filed  within  four  weeks  of  the  receipt  of  the  
respondent’s  brief  -­  Or.6  R.5(3)  S.C.R.  
POSSIBLE  ORDERS  TO  BE  MADE  BY  COURT  OF  APPEAL  AND  SUPREME  COURT  
1.   Appeal  against  sentence  only  
a.   Allow  the  appeal  i.e.  quash  the  sentence  and  substitute  another  sentence.  
b.   Dismiss  the  appeal  i.e.  Affirm  the  sentence  of  lower  court.  
2.   Appeal  against  conviction  
a.   Allow  the  appeal  i.e.  quash  the  conviction  and  acquit  the  Appellant  or  order  a  retrial.  
b.   Dismiss  the  appeal  i.e.  affirm  judgment  of  Lower  (High)  Court.  
c.   Set  aside  the  sentence  of  High  Court  and  substitute  another  sentence  
d.   Substitute  another  conviction.  
e.   Affirm  the  judgment  in  part  
 
3.  Appeal  against  order  of  Acquittal,  Discharge  or  Dismissal;  
Allow  the  appeal  i.e.  return  a  verdict  of  conviction  either  sentence  the  accused  according  to  
limit  of  trial  court  or  order  a  retrial.  

S.19&23  C.A.A.  2004;  

S.26  SC  ACT  
APPLICATION   FOR   EXTENSION   OF   TIME   WITHIN   WHICH   TO   APPEAL   –made   at   trial  
court  first  (i.e.  Court  of  Appeal  first)  
The  court  has  discretion  to  grant  or  refuse  an  application  for  extension  of  time.  
• The  application  shall  be  by  motion  supported  by  affidavit.      
• The   affidavit   must   disclose   reasons,   which   justify   the   delay   in   filing   the   notice   of  
appeal  or  leave  to  appeal  within  time.  
• The  affidavit  shall  exhibit  a  copy  of  the  proposed  notice  or  leave.  
• The   application   for   extension   of   time   shall   be   made   to   the   High   Court   in   case   of  
appeals  to  High  Court.  (note)    
• For  appeals  to  CA;  the  application  for  extension  of  time  shall  be  made  to  the  CA.  
 
AMENDMENT  OF  GROUNDS  OF  APPEAL  
Where  the  appellant  observes  a  defect  in  the  grounds  of  appeal,  he  may  amend  the  defect.    
If  the  time  for  filing  an  appeal  has  not  elapsed,  he  may  file  amended  grounds  of  appeal    
without  the  leave  of  court.      
 
If   the   time   limit   has   elapsed,   he  must  apply  for  leave  to  amend  the   grounds   of   appeal   by  
motion  on  notice  
 
ABANDONMENT  OF  APPEAL  
An  appeal  may  be  abandoned  either  expressly  or  impliedly.    
IMPLIED  ABANDONMENT  OF  APPEAL  

An   appeal   is   impliedly   withdrawn   if   the   Appellant   fails   to   file   his   grounds   of   appeal   or   fulfil  
other  conditions  of  appeal  after  filing  his  Notice.  
EXPRESS  ABANDONMENT  OF  APPEAL  

• Where  it  is  express,  the  appellant  must  submit  a  Notice  of  his  intention  to  abandon  
in   CRIMINAL   FORM   11   OR   FORM   11A   to   the   Registrar   of   the   Court   of   which  
decision  is  being  appealed  against  (the  lower  CT).  Or.16  R.  18  (1)  CAR.  
• The  Notice  must  be  submitted  NOT   LATER   THAN   2   DAYS  from  the  date  set  down  
for  hearing  of  the  appeal.  
• Upon   submission   of   notice   of   abandonment   the   Registrar   of   the   High   Court   will  
notify  the  Registrar  of  the  Appeal  Court  on  receipt  of  the  Notice.  
 Or.2  (Pt.1)  R.13(3)(4)  &  (5)  HCL  (Appeal)  Rules.  
• The  Notice  may  be  given  to  the  Registrar  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  by  filling  Criminal  
Form  11  or  11A  or  to  Registrar  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  case  may  be  who  shall  
notify  the  Registrar  of  the  Court  below,  the  respondent  and  the  prison  authority  in  
Criminal  Form  12.    
Or.16  R.  18(1)  &  (2)  CAR.;  

 Or.9  R.  9(1)  &  (2)  SCR.  

WITHDRAWAL  OF  NOTICE  OF  ABANDONMENT  
• A   party   may   withdraw   his   Notice   of   abandonment   with   leave   of   the   Court   of   Appeal  
by  filling  Criminal   Form   13   or   13A  or  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  case  may  be.  Se  
Or.16  R.19  CAR.;  Or.9  R.  9(3)  SCR.  
ABATEMENT  OF  APPEAL  
An  appeal  will  abate  where  an  appellant  whose  ground  of  appeal  is  based  on  a  sentence  of  
imprisonment  dies  before  the  appeal  is  heard.    
Or.8  R.9  (5)  SCR.;    
S.64  MCL,  Lagos,  2004;    

S.291  C.P.C.;    
R.  V.  Rowe  [1955]39  CAR.  57.  
 Bello  v.  AG  Oyo  
NOTE-­‐However,   appeal   will   not   abate   on   the   death   of   the   appellant   where   the   ground   of  
appeal   is   founded   on   sentence   of   fine.   This   is   because   the   fine   may   be   levied   on   the  
deceased/appellant’s  estate  notwithstanding  his  death.  R.  V.  Rowe  .  
 
WHEN  CAN  A  RE-­TRIAL  MAY  BE  ORDERED  
An  Appeal  Court  may  order  a  re-­trial  where  all  the  following  conditions  are  present:  
i.  That  there  has  been  an  error  in  Law  or  an  irregularity  in  procedure  such  that  although  
the   trial   was   not   rendered   a   nullity,   it   cannot   be   said   that   a   miscarriage   of   justice   has  
been  occasioned;  
ii.  That  leaving  the  error  or  irregularity,  the  evidence  taken  as  whole  discloses  a  substantial  
case  against  the  appellant;  
iii.   That   there   are   no   special   circumstances   as   would   render   it   oppressive   to   put   the  
appellant  on  trial  a  second  time;  
iv.   That   the   offence(s)   of   which   the   appellant   was   convicted   or   the   consequences   to   the  
appellant  or  to  any  other  person  of  the  conviction  or  acquittal  of  the  appellant,  are  not  
merely  trivial;  and    
v.  That  to  refuse  an  order  for  re-­‐trial  would  occasion  a  greater  miscarriage  of  justice  
 
NOTE  That  the  above  conditions  are  cumulative.  YESUFU  ABODUNDE  &  ORS.  V.  R.  .  
OKAFOR  VS.  STATE  and  AIGBE  VS.  STATE        

NOTE  FURTHER-­‐An  order  of  retrial  will  not  be  ordered  if  it  would  enable  the  Prosecution  
to  adduce  evidence  as  the  missing  link  to  succeed  in  obtaining  a  conviction.  –    
ANKWA  VS  STATE,  
 KAJUBO  VS  STATE    
ADEOYE  VS.  STATE.    
 
DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  RETRIAL  AND  TRIAL  DENOVO  
RE  TRIAL  –  Most  often  goes  to  a  different  court  or  a  different  judge  to  hear  all  over  again  a  
case  which  has  been  tried  on  and  determined  by  a  judgement.  
 
TRIAL  DE  NOVO:    This  is  a  fresh  trial  of  a  case  that  was  previously  part  heard  by  another  
judge  but  was  not  determined  by  a  judgment.  
NOTICE  OF  FINAL  DETERMINATION  OF  AN  APPEAL  
The  decision  or  outcome  of  every  appeal  must  be  communicated  to  the  following  persons:  
i.   The  Appellant;  if  he  is  in  custody    
ii.   The  Respondent;  
iii.   The  Prison  Authority;  and  
iv.   The  Registrar  of  the  court  whose  decisions  was  appealed  against  
 
BAIL  PENDING  APPEAL  
A  convicted  person  who  has  appealed  against  his  conviction  may  apply  to  be  released  on  
bail  pending  the  determination  of  his  appeal.      
The  grant  of  bail  is  now  at  the  Court’s  discretion  and  not  as  of  right.    
 S.  54  (2)  (a)  Magistrates’  Courts  Law  of  Lagos  state;  
 S.  283  (4)  &  340  (2)  C.P.C  in  respect  of  appeals  from  Area  to  Upper  Area  Court  
S.  28&29  (1)  Ct  of  Appeal  Act.;    
S.31(1)  S.C.A.;    
Or.9  R.4(6)  S.C.R.;    
Kuti  V.  Police    
 
CONDITIONS  FOR  THE  GRANT  OF  BAIL  PENDING  APPEAL  .  
The   Appellant   is   required   to   show   EXCEPTIONAL   OR   SPECIAL   circumstances   (Ajayi   v.  
state)  why  bail  should  be  granted.  
 
At   this   stage,   the   appellant   is   a   convict,   and   has   lost   the   presumption   of   innocence  
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.-­‐  
O.17  R.18  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  Rules  2011  and  Forms  11  and  11A  of  the  Rules.    
 
CONDITIONS  
1. There  must  be  a  valid  Notice  of  Appeal    
 2. The  grounds  of  appeal  are  likely  to  succeed  against  the  conviction  on  point  of  Law  
FAWEHIMI  V.  STATE  .  

3. That  the  duration  of  appeal  may  out  last  the  duration  of  the  sentence    
 R.  V.  TUNWASE  ;  

OKOROJI  V.  THE  STATE  ;  

MADIKE  V.  THE  STATE  ;  
 OLAMOLU  V.  FRN  
OBI  V  STATE  (1992)  

4. The  real  case  is  so  complex  that  constant  consultation  between  the  convict  and  his  
counsel  is  required  for  the  preparation  of  the  appeal.  -­‐R.  V.  STARKIE  

5. The  appellant’s  health  is  seriously  in  jeopardy  and  can  not  be  taken  care  of  at  the  
Prison  facility.  FAWEHINMI  VS.  STATE  (1990):  appellant  had  to  prove  from  the  
nature  of  his  illness,  he  needed  constant  medical  attention  and  the  type  of  treatment  
required  is  not  readily  movable;  CHUKWUNYERE  V.  THE  C.O.P.  
6. The  conduct  of  the  appellant  during  trial  in  relation  to  the  bail  earlier  granted(not  
jumping  bail).  MUNIR  VS.  FRN.      

7. Where  the  appellant  is  a  first  time  offender.  

8. Where  the  sentence  is  manifestly  contestable  

9. The  severity  of  the  offence:  George  v  FRN  (2011)  
10. Where  there  is  a  mistrial  on  the  face  of  the  records  
 

PROCEDURE  FOR  APPLYING  FOR  BAIL  PENDING  APPEAL    

The  application  is  made    by  a  motion  on  notice  to  be  supported  with:    
1. Affidavit  showing  special  circumstances  for  its  grant  
2. CTC  of  the  judgment  of  the  Court  convicting  him    
3. CTC  of  the  Notice  of  appeal.  
 
NOTE  THE  FOLLOWING  
• The  proper  procedure  to  be  followed  when  bail  application  is  refused  by  the  High  
Court  is  to  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeal.  THE  STATE  VS.  UWA  
• Where  several  accused  persons  are  charged  together  and  they  file  a  joint  appl.  for  
bail  pending  appeal  by  way  of  motion,  the  motion  must  be  supported  by  separate  
affidavits   sworn   to   by   each   accused   person   personally   or   by   some   other  
person.-­  ATIGBU  V.  COP.    
• The  application  is  first  made  to  the  trial  court  before  it  can  be  made  to  the  
appellate  court  if  it  is  refused.  -­‐OFFIONG  VS.  COP  
  
See  sample  draft  of  a  Notice  of  Appeal  and  a  Motion  on  Notice  for  bail  pending  
appeal/Affidavit  in  support  of  the  Motion:    
NB:  File  separate  notices  of  appeal  for  each  accused  person    
Criminal  Form  3  (for  second  appeal)  –  Form  for  –  adapt  the  form  to  the  particular  situation  
in  hand  
Form  1  is  for  first  appeal    
 
IN  THE  COURT  OF  APPEAL  OF  NIGERIA  
SITTING  AT  ABUJA  
 
 
CASE  NO:  CR/213/2015  
APPEAL  NO………….    
BETWEEN:    
1.RAMPAM  ALECHENU    …………APPELLANT  
AND  
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA………….  RESPONDENT    
NOTICE  OF  APPEAL  
To  the  Registrar    
Court  of  Appeal  
Abuja.    
I,  RAMPAM  ALECHENU  having  been  convicted  of  the  offence  of  conspiracy  to  commit  
culpable  homicide  punishable  with  death  and  now  being  a  Prisoner  in  Prison  at  the  Federal  
Prisons  Abuja,  DO  HEREBY  GIVE  NOTICE  of  Appeal  against  my  conviction  on  the  following  
grounds:    
GROUND  ONE:    

The  Learned  trial  Judge  erred  in  Law  when  he  convicted  the  accused  on  no  admissible  
evidence  proving  his  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt.    
PARTICULARS  OF  ERROR:    
1.  The  evidence  of  PW1  is  hearsay  and  it  did  not  link  the  death  of  the  victim  to  the  1st  
Accused/Appellant.    
GROUND  TWO    

The  decision  of  the  trial  judge  is  unreasonable  and  cannot  be  supported  having  regard  to  
the  evidence.    
    ………………..  
APPELLANT      
Only  where  person  is  an  illiterate,  then  needs  an  illiterate  jurat  
DATED  THIS  10TH  DAY  OF  AUGUST  2015  
 
Ade  Adamu  
Appellant’s  Counsel  
Address  
Phone  number  
Email  address    
 
FOR  SERVICE  ON:    
The  Respondent,    
The  Attorney-­‐General  of  the  Federation,  
Federal  Ministry  of  Justice,  
Abuja.  
 

Bail  pending  appeal:  

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  
ABUJA    
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  BWARI    
CASE  NO:  
CV/AF/345………………    
APPEAL  NO:…………    
MOTION  NO…………  
BETWEEN:    
RAMPAM  ALECHENU    ………………….  APPLICANT/APPELLANT  
AND    
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA…..  COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT    
MOTION  ON  NOTICE  FOR  BAIL  
BROUGHT  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  341(2)(B)  AND  (C)  OF  THE  CRIMINAL  
PROCEDURE  CODE  ACT  AND  
UNDER  THE  INHERENT  JURISDICTION  OF  THIS  HONOURABLE  
COURT  
TAKE  NOTICE  that  this  Honourable  Court  will  be  moved  on  the  …….day  of  ……….2015  at  the  
Hour  of  9  O’clock  in  the  forenoon  or  so  soon  thereafter  as  Counsel  on  behalf  of  the  
Appellant/Applicant  may  be  heard  praying  this  Honourable  Court  for  the  following:    
1.AN  ORDER  releasing  the  Appellant/Applicant  to  bail  pending  the  determination  of  the  
appeal  against  his  conviction  at  the  Court  of  Appeal.    
2.  AND  FOR  SUCH  FURTHER  ORDER  AND  ORDERS  as  this  Honourable  Court  may  deem  fit  
to  make  in  the  circumstances.    
DATED  THIS  ……DAY  OF  ……………………….  2015.  
………………    
Abaji  Ekon    
Applicant’s  Counsel  
Adamu  &  Co  
No  15  Broad  Street  Abuja  
Phone  number  
Email  address  
FOR  SERVICE  ON:  
The  Attorney-­‐General  of  the  Federation,    
Federal  Ministry  of  Justice,    
Maitama    
Abuja,  FCT  
 
 
IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CAPITAL  TERRITORY,  
ABUJA  
IN  THE  ABUJA  JUDICIAL  DIVISION    
HOLDEN  AT  BWARI  
 
CASE  NO……..  
APPEAL  NO…………  
BETWEEN:    
RAMPAM  ALECHENU    ………………….  APPLICANT/APPELLANT    
AND  
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA…..  COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT      
 
AFFIDAVIT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  MOTION  FOR  BAIL  
I,  RAMPAM  ALECHENU,  Male,  Adult,  Christian,  Student  and  a  Nigerian  Citizen  of  One  House  
Estate  Bwari  Abuja  do  hereby  make  oath  and  state  as  follows:    

1. That   I   am   the   1st   Applicant/Appellant   in   this   case   and   by   virtue   of   which   I   am  

conversant  with  the  facts  of  the  case.    
 2. I  was  tried  and  convicted  for  conspiracy  to  commit  culpable  homicide  punishable  with  
death  by  this  Court  dated  the  11  day  of  June  2011.  
3. That   consequent   upon   my   conviction   and   sentence,   I   have   appealed   against   it   to   the  
Court  of  Appeal  Abuja  Division  and  a  copy  of  the  Notice  of  Appeal  filed  on  the  13  day  of  
June  2011  is  attached  and  marked  Exhibit  ‘A’.    
4. That   I   will   be   very   material   in   the   preparation   of   my   appeal   as   I   was   told   by   my  
Counsel  which  I  verily  believe  to  be  true.    
5. That  the  grounds  for  the  conviction  and  sentence  are  doubtful  in  Law,  and  granting  me  
bail  pending  the  hearing  of  the  appeal  is  just  in  the  circumstances.    
6. That   the   possible   determination   of   the   Appeal   may   out   last   my   sentence   of   six   months  
term  of  imprisonment.    
7. That  I  make  this  statement  in  good  faith  believing  its  contents  to  be  true  and  correct  
and  in  accordance  with  the  Oaths  Act  2004.    
                …………………….    
                Deponent    
Sworn  to  at  the  High  Court  FCT  Registry,  
This  ………….day  of  ……………  2011.  
BEFORE  ME  
…………………………  
COMMISSIONER  OF  OATHS  
NB:-­‐  
Please  note  that  if  an  application  for  bail  pending  appeal  is  refused  by  the  trial  Court,  the  
subsequent  application  to  the  Appeal  Court  should  be  made  exhibiting  the  following:  
1. Copy  of  the  Judgment  of  the  trial  Court    
2. Copy  of  the  Notice  of  Appeal    
3. copy  of  the  order/Judgment  of  the  Court  refusing  the  application  by  the  trial  Court    
4. copy  of  a  medical  report,  if  the  application  is  on  the  ground  of  ill  health.  
 
 
IN  THE  COURT  OF  APPEAL  OF  NIGERIA  
SITTING  AT  ABUJA  
APPEAL  NO:  
BETWEEN  

RAMPAM  ALECHENU………APPELLANT  
AND  
THE  FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  NIGERIA…….RESPONDENT  

 
 APPELLANT’S  BRIEF  OF  ARGUMENT  
INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT  

This  is  an  appeal  against  the  decision  of  the  High  Court  of  the  Federal  CPLital  Territory  
delivered  on  11th  day  of  July  2015  by  Hon  Justice  Maza  Maza.  The  Notice  of  Appeal  was  filed  
on…..  The  Appellant  was  arraigned  on  a  charge  of  murder  preferred  by  the  Attorney  
General  of  the  Federation  and  subsequently  convicted  of  conspiracy  to  commit  murder    

 
ISSUES  FOR  DETERMINATION  
1)  Whether  the  learned  trial  judge  erred  in  law  by  convicting  the  accused  person  of  a  
charge  unsupported  by  evidence  in  the  case.  

 
STATEMENT  OF  FACTS  

The  Prosecution  called  25  witnesses  …….  

 
ARGUMENTS  ON  THE  ISSUES  FOR  DETERMINATION  

ISSUE  ONE  
It  is  trite  law  that  for  a  charge  of  conspiracy  to  stand,  there  must  be  an  agreement  between  
two  or  more  persons.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  convict  only  one  person  of  conspiracy  
since  there  must  be  an  agreement  with  someone  else  to  conspire.  See  the  case  of  …..  
 

CONCLUSION/SUMMARY  
This  Honourable  Court  is  urged  to  quash  the  decision  of  the  trial  court  and  acquit  the  
accused  of  the  offence  of  conspiracy  of  culpable  homicide  punishable  by  death    
LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  
JUDICIAL    
STATUTORY    

DATED  THIS  10TH  DAY  OF  AUGUST  2015  

E  Dafe  
Dafe  &  Co  

No  3  Ahmadu  Road,  Abuja  

 Email  address  
Phone  number  

For  service  on:  

The  Attorney  General  of  the  Federation  
Maitama  
Abuja,  FCT