CORAM

---

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED L. ABUBAKAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

AMINU BAKO

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE STATE

2. IBRAHIM BELLO

3. IBRAHIM MOHAMMED

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant who was the 1st accused person was charged together with three other Accused persons on a two Count Charge of Criminal Conspiracy and attempted Robbery contrary to Sections 97(1) and 299(c) of the Penal Code respectively. The Appellant herein contended that upon arraignment, he made a plea of “Not Guilty” with respect to the two Counts but that, there was an omission by the trial Court for his plea to be taken with respect to the first count which is Criminal Conspiracy. The trial court proceeded with the trial, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to ten (10) years imprisonment with N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) fine and six (6) months imprisonment in default of the fine, the sentence on both counts were to run consecutively. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the trial court ought not to have convicted the Appellant on count two (2), when the Appellant pleaded “guilty” nor “not guilty” in count one (1).

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached by the trial court when it proceeded to try and convict the Appellant for the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Attempted Robbery without taking his plea on Count 1 of the charge.

2. Whether the finding of guilt and the conviction of the Appellant for the offence of armed robbery is valid in law considering the charge before the trial court.

3. Whether the conviction of the Appellant is justifiable in law having regards to the evidence before the trial court.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ARRAIGNMENT – PROCEDURE FOR A VALID ARRAIGNMENT

---

“A valid arraignment is the commencement of a criminal trial where the charge would be read and explained to the accused person who would be asked whether he/she is “guilty” or “not guilty” of the offence(s) charged, the accused person would either plead guilty or not guilty.  Section 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (C.P.C.) provides thus:

“187(1) When the High Court is ready to commence the trial, the accused shall appear or be brought before it and the charge shall be read out in court and explained to him and he shall be asked whether he is guilty or not guilty of the offence or offences charged.”

(Underlined mine for emphasis)

Compliance with the above provision is mandatory for a valid arraignment of the Appellant, in the absence of any plea by the Appellant to count one (1) of the charge of Criminal Conspiracy, the trial court would have wasted precious judicial time as the entire proceeding would be a nullity.  Where a charge is not read and explained to an accused person and where no plea is taken as in the present case, the whole trial becomes a nullity.  The conditions as laid out by the Supreme Court in Udo Vs. The State (2015) (supra) are as follows:

1. The accused person must appear before the court.

2. The charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by the Registrar or other officer of the court.

3. The accused shall be called upon to plead instantly to the charge.

 

---

CRIMINAL TRIAL – MANDATORY PROCEDURE TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN TAKING THE PLEA OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“Further, explaining the offence to the understanding of the accused person without plea being taken does not make for a valid plea.  The learned counsel to the 1st Respondent had argued that count one (1) of the charge was read and understood by the Appellant and should be taken as a plea, this is erroneous.  The plea of an accused person should be clear and on record, the requirements are not directory but, mandatory they must be strictly complied with in all criminal trials.  In Sunday Offor & Anor Vs. The State (2012) LPELR – 19658 (SC) PP. 20 – 21, PARA. C, (also, (2012) 18 NWLR (PT. 1333) P. 421 and (2012) 12 SC II P. 21) his lordship Ogunbiyi, JSC on the interpretation of Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in respect of arraignment and plea of an accused person held thus:

“…………………. Suffice it to say however that by the use of the word shall, in sub Section 187 (1) supra, the following procedure ought to be strictly followed; that is to say that the charge must first be read out and explained to the accused in the open court, thereafter he shall be asked whether he is guilty or not of the offence or offences charged. …..”

(underlined mine for emphasis)

See also, Udo Vs. The State (2005) (supra), Solola Vs. State (2005) (supra), Adamu & Anor Vs. FRN (2019) LPELR – 48775 (SC) PP. 25 – 26, PARA. A, Durwode Vs. State (2000) LPELR – 973 (SC) PP. 10 – 11, PARAS. A – D and Omojola Akinlolu Vs. The State (2017) LPELR – 42670 (SC) PP. 46 – 49, PARAS. F – A.” PER C.N. UWA, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

Criminal Procedure Code (C.P.C.)

Penal Code

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT