CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

GAMBO ABUBAKAR APPELLANTS

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned along with one Dauda Abubakar at the Federal High Court, Jos Division, on July 29th 2011, on a three-count charge of offences contrary to, and punishable under, Section 518 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38 Laws of the Federation, 2004 and Section’15 (2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. Aggrieved by the decision, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, on the ground of improper arraignment at the trial court but the lower Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Still further aggrieved, he finally approached this court vide his Notice of Appeal with the same complaint of improper arraignment.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether from the record of proceedings, there was a proper arraignment of the appellant before his trial, conviction and sentence by the trial court for the lower court to have affirmed same?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ARRAIGNMENT – CONDITIONS FOR THE VALIDITY OF A PLEA OF GUILTY

---

“As it is well-known, a plea of guilty is valid, if made in a very unambiguous and unequivocal way; and the same is received by a trial court or tribunal not labouring under the misapprehension of what the law is all about, Nkie v FRN (2014) LPELR -22877 (SC) 25;E -F; Amachukwu v. FRN [2009] 8 NWLR (pt. 1144) 475; Okewu v. FRN [2005] All FWLR (pt. 254) 858; Kpoobari v. FRN(2016) LPELR -40010 (SC) 16 -17. –

---

ARRAIGNMENT – REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID ARRAIGNMENT

---

“I will reproduce the views of Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Idemudia v State (1999) LPELR – 1418 (SC) in extenso to demonstrate that this court has, consistently, laid down guidelines for proper arraignment. According to His erudite Lordship:
A valid trial is posited on the fact of a valid arraignment. An .arraignment is ad rationem ponere, that is, calling on the accused [person] to reckoning for the allegations of the offences against him. The laws of this country have made adequate provision for the protection of the interest of the accused [person] and the citizens in the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, the court before whom an accused person is required to appear for reckoning in respect of allegations of offences, is required to observe certain constitutional and procedural requirements. There is the constitutional requirement in section 33(6″, (a), and the provision of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law …
The common feature in [the] provisions is the use of the expression ‘shall’ to define the duty required. Thus, expressing in mandatory terms, the obligation of the court to observe the requirements prescribed towards ensuring a valid arraignment. It does appear from the [said] provisions that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence. Thus, there is a duty on the court to observe that
(a)The accused is brought before it unfettered, unless it sees cause to order otherwise.
(b)To read and explain to the accused arraigned the charge against him in the language he understands.
(c)Satisfy itself that the charge had been read and explained to the accused in the language he understands.-

---

ARRAIGNMENT –APPROPRIATE TIME FOR OBJECTING TO THE PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENABLING PROVISIONS

---

“The fundamental issue in the matter of arraignment is that the charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused person in the language he understands before the plea is taken. The most appropriate time for taking any objection to the plea of an accused person which is in contravention of the constitutional and procedural provisions is before trial-see Egbert v. The State [1981] 11-12 SC 98. This does not preclude taking objection, thereafter as Kajubo v. State [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721 and Eyorokoromo v. State [1979] 6-9 SC 3 and other cases conclusively decided. Precious time is saved by an early intervention and justice will be done if the objection is sustained”. –

---

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF AN ARRAIGNMENT – CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT AN ARRAIGNMENT IS VALID

---

“It would seem to me that the mandatory provision of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law which requires that the charge be read and explained to the accused is complied with if there is evidence on the record to show that the accused understood the charge and was in no way misled by the absence of explanation ex facie. It is conceded that the subsequent validity of the procedure rests on the validity of the plea on arraignment. However, where there is counsel in the case defending an accused person, the taking of the plea by the court it ought to be presumed in favour of regularity, namely that even if it was not stated on the record, the charge had been read and explained to the accused on arraignment before the plea was taken. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. Accordingly, in the absence of proof to the contrary the presumption prevails. See also section 150(1) Evidence Act. It does not seem to me that the requirement that the judge should be satisfied that the charge has been read and explained to the accused is one which need to appear on the record and the non-appearance of which affects the justice of the case. It is good practice to so indicate. It is sufficient on the record as a whole if it could be gathered that the accused understood the nature of the charge. The essential purpose of the enabling provisions is to ensure not only that the accused person understands the charge against him but also appreciates its nature before his plea is taken – see Effiom v. The State [1995] I NWLR (pt. 373) 507.
This court has maintained this position ever since. As I had occasion to observe in Blessing v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) LPELR – 24689 (SC) 58 – 60: observations I adopt as part of my reasons in this judgement:
It is, rather, strange that, up till now, this court is still being inundated with appeals woven around the interpretation of the requirements of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even in the face of an avalanche of its decisions on these requirements. Only some of these will be cited here, Josiah v. State [1985] 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 125; [1985] 1 SC 406; Kajubo v. State[198B] 1 NWLR (pt. 73) 721, 731; [1988] 3 SCNJ (pt. 1) 1179; Ebem v. State [1990] 7 NWLR (pt. 160) 113; Idemudia v. State [1999] 5 SCNJ 47; Onuoha Kalu v The State [1998] 13 NWLR (pt. 583) 531; Erekanure v The State[1993] 5 NWLR (pt. 294) 385; Omokuwajo v FRN(2013) LPELR -20184 (SC); Sharfa v The State (1992) LPELR -3038 (SC) 11.
Others include: Ogunye v The State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 567; Ewe v The State (1992) LPELR -1179 (SC); Debie v The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1038); Lufadeju and Anor v The State (2007) LPELR -1795 (SC); Olabode v The State (2009) LPELR -2542 (SC); Amako v The State (1995) LPELR -451 (SC); Olabode v The State (2009) LPELR -2542 (SC); Amako v The State (1995) LPELR -451 (SC); Josiah v State [1985] I SC 400, 416; Eyorokoomo v The State [1979] 8-9 SC 3; Dibie v The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1038) 30, 61-62; Edibo v The State(2007) LPELR -1012 (SC); Adeniji v The State (2001) LPELR-126 (SC); Madu v The State (2012) LPELR -7867 (SC); C^/ye v 77?e State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 555; Rufai v The State (2001) LPELR -2963 (SC); Effiom v The State [1995] I NWLR (pt 373) 507; Adeniji v Yobe State [2001] FWLR (pt 57) 809; Omokuwajo v FRN (2013) LPELR -20184 (SC); Ogunye v The State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 567.

---

COURT- DUTY OF COUNSEL TO RESPECT THE COURT AND NOT TO IMPEACH ITS INTEGRITY

---

“As this Court pointed out in Okoro v The State [1998] 14 NWLR (pt 594)181:
The provision of the law should not be stretched to a point of absurdity by reading into it that the Judge must record that the charge was explained to the accused [person] to his satisfaction before taking his plea. It will be impeaching the integrity of the Judge to do that, as no Judge will take the plea of an accused [person] if he is not satisfied that the charge was read and explained to the accused [person] to his satisfaction.
I therefore, with humility implore all counsel who have the advantage of practising at this rare altitude of the court’s hierarchy to, carefully, read these cases before irritating this court their appeals that are dead on arrival. These case are: Ebem v. State [1990] 7 NWLR (pt. 160) 113; Idemudia v. State [1999] 5 SCNJ 47; Onuoha Kalu v The State [1998] 13 NWLR (pt. 583) 531; Erekanure v The State [1993] 5 NWLR (pt. 294) 385; Omokuwajo v FRN (2013) LPELR -20184 (SC); Sharfal v The State (1992) LPELR -3038 (SC) 11. Others include: Ogunye v The State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 567; Ewe v The State {1992) LPELR -1179 (SC); Debie v The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1038); Lufadeju and Anor v The State (2007) LPELR -1795 (SC); Olabode v The State (2009) LPELR -2542 (SC); Amako v The State (1995) LPELR-451 (SC); Olabode v The State (2009) LPELR-2542 (SC); Amako v The State (1995) LPELR -451 (SC); Josiah v The State [1985] I SC 400, 416; Eyorokoomo v The State [1979] 8-9 SC 3; Dibie v The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1038) 30, 61-62; Edibo v The State (2007) LPELR -1012 (SC); Adeniji v The State (2001) LPELR -126 (SC); Afedi v The State(2012) LPELR-7867 (SC); Oguniye v The State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 555; Rufai v The State (2001) LPELR -2963 (SC); Effiom v The State [1995] I NWLR (pt 373) 507; Adeniji v The State [2001] FWLR (pt 57) 809; Omokuwajo v FRN (2013) LPELR -20184 (SC); Ogunye v The State [1999] 5 NWLR (pt 604) 548, 567. –

---

ARRAIGNMENT- WHETHER A FAILURE TO RECORD THE PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN A DIRECT SPEECH IS SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THE TRIAL A NULLITY

---

“Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JSC in Adama V. State{2017} LPELR-42266(SC), in a strikingly similar scenario nailed the matter thus:
“The charge having been read over and explained to both accused persons in English language and each of them pleaded not guilty thereto, I find it difficult to conceive how the arraignment of the accused persons can be faulted. Without doubt, it would have been preferable for the learned trial judge to have recorded the plea of each of the accused persons separately in the direct speech. However, failure to do this cannot be fatal to their plea so long as the charge was read over and over and explained to them, whether jointly or separately, and they both understood the same and each of them individually entered his plea thereto. It would not matter, whether the Court’s record which described the event was written in direct or reported speech…The authorities do-not say that it must be recorded that the charge was read and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court (as claim by the appellant} before proceeding to record his plea thereto. Without doubt it is good practice for the trial Court to record that “the charge was read and fully explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the Court” but I do not think the failure to record will render the trial a nullity.”-

---

ARRAIGNMENT- EFFECT OF A TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO TAKE THE PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON BEFORE TRIAL

---

“It is trite law that to give a plea is for an accused person to formally respond personally to a criminal charge, either of “guilty”, “not guilty” or “no contest”. See Elijah Ameh Okewu V. The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2012) 4 SCM 118. There is no doubt that the plea of an accused person must be taken by the trial Court before his trial commences. This is in obedience to and in compliance with section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, where the trial Court failed to take the plea of an accused person before he is tried, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be declared a nullity. What it means is that the accused person could not have been said to be properly arraigned and this is fatal to the prosecution’s case. See Per ARIWOOLA, JSC in Adeyemi V. State (2013) LPELR-20337(SC)”.-

---

ARRAIGNMENT –APPROPRIATE TIME FOR OBJECTING TO A PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENABLING PROVISIONS

---

“The most appropriate time for taking any objection to the plea of an accused person which is in contravention of the constitutional and procedural provisions is before trial. Precious time is saved by an early intervention and justice will be done if the objection is sustained. See Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC in Idemudia V. State (1999) LPELR-1418(SC)”. –

---

ARRAIGNMENT- DUTY OF COUNSEL ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 215 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

---

Nweze, JSC, in Blessing v. FRN (2015) LPELR – 24689 (SC) 58, had lamented that strangely, ”this Court is still being inundated with appeals woven around the interpretation of the requirements of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even in the face of an avalanche of its decisions on these requirements’’. This is what makes this appeal a clear case of abuse of court’s process. It goes beyond mere counsel’s “misconception of the attitude of this court to this question of arraignment”. The counsel is apparently behaving like the French Bourbons – who learnt nothing, who forgot everything. It is a clear abuse of court’s process for Counsel to waste the precious time of the Court and, of course, the respondent to present to the Court an issue over which the attitude of the Court is well known. Apart from it being futile; it is a reprehensible conduct.
No lawyer as an officer of the Court, is permitted to do anything that adversely affects the administration of justice -Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2007. By Rule 32(3)0) of the same RPC a Counsel, before any Court, is enjoined to eschew the promotion of a case which to his knowledge is false. I say no more. –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Criminal Code Act, Cap C38 Laws of the Federation, 2004|Criminal Procedure ACT, Cap 80, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.|Criminal Procedure Law|Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004.|Evidence Act, 2011|Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2007|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT