CORAM

---

KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

JOSEPH ADEBAYO

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

None.

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, together with one Victor Amadi, were arraigned at the High Court, Owerri, Imo State for the murder of one Benjamin Iheama on 20th January, 1985.

 

 

---

HELD

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the entire proceedings before the trial court and the Court of Appeal were not illegal, unconstitutional, and null and void.

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right or justified in affirming the conviction of the appellant by the trial court which suo motu undertook the untenable function of an Interpreter, and whether this procedure did not violate the appellant’s right to fair hearing and render thereby all the findings and conclusions of guilt, nullities

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right or justified in its decision that Exhibit A, the alleged confessional statement, was direct and positive and that the same together with the surrounding circumstances was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE COURT WOULD PRESUME THAT THE ACCUSED UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGES READ TO HIM

---

 

The trite position of the law is that when a charge is read to the accused person and he makes his plea and the court records his plea and thereafter proceeds to trial, the presumption is that the court is satisfied that the charge was explained to the accused to its satisfaction in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law as set out above. PER MUHAMMED J.S.C

 

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BY THE FAILURE TO CARRY AN INTERPRETER

The trite position of the law is that where the accused person understands the language of the proceedings, no miscarriage of justice is occasioned by the failure to provide an interpreter. PER MUHAMMED J.S.C

 

DUTY OF THE ACCUSED COUNSEL TO BRING TO NOTICE OF COURT THAT ACCUSED DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE USED AT THE TRIAL

Where the accused does not understand the language used at his trial, it is his duty or his counsel’s duty to bring to the notice of the court at the earliest opportunity, that he does not understand the language used at the trial. PER MUHAMMED J.S.C

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Solola v. State (2005) Q. C. C. R. vol.3, page 160 (2005) 6 SCM, 139

Erekanure v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 3B5

Kajubo v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721.

Uchegbu v. State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 309) 89 at page 103-104

Lockman v. State (1972) All NLR, 498

State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142

Section 33 (6) (a) and (e) of the Constitution

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT