CORAM

---

Jimi Olukayode Bada-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo -Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo- Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

ALATISHE OLUWASANMI SAMUEL

APPELLANTS 

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, CONSPIRACY, ATTEMPT, AMENDMENT OF CHARGES, EVIDENCE, FAIR HEARING, APPEAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Alatishe Oluwasanmi Samuel, and his co-defendant were charged before the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, for offenses under the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015. They were accused of facilitating the entry of one Okeda Mercy (also known as Alatise Bola) into France for financial gain, organizing her foreign travel to promote prostitution, and conspiracy to engage in fraudulent acts. The appellant denied the charges, asserting his role as a travel agent. At trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, while the appellant testified in his defense. The trial court convicted him on all counts, sentencing him to 5, 7, and 5 years for the three counts, respectively. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed, challenging the conviction and sentencing, particularly the trial court’s unilateral amendment of the charges.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It found that the trial court erred by unilaterally amending the charges and convicting the appellant of the substantive offenses without taking his plea.The conviction on counts 1 and 2 was set aside for lack of fair hearing. However, the conviction for conspiracy in count 3 was upheld. The sentence was reduced to 30 months, which was deemed already served.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court erred by amending the charges without taking the appellant’s fresh plea, thereby breaching his right to fair hearing?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the trial court properly considered the time spent in custody during sentencing?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AMENDMENT OF CHARGES – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AMENDING THE CHARGES WITHOUT TAKING A FRESH PLEA:

---

“The Court held that the unilateral amendment of charges by the trial court from attempt to commit to the substantive commission of the offense without taking a fresh plea violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing. This breach rendered the conviction on counts 1 and 2 null and void.– Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT:

---

“The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy to facilitate the travel of PW1 for prostitution. The circumstantial and direct evidence, including the appellant’s actions in furtherance of the conspiracy, justified the conviction for conspiracy.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

TRIAL PROCEDURE- WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO COMPUTE TIME SPENT IN CUSTODY AMOUNTED TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

---

“The Court agreed that the trial court failed to properly account for the appellant’s time in custody when determining his sentence, as mandated by Section 416(2)(e) of the ACJA. The sentence was consequently reduced to reflect the time already served.” –Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT