CORAM

---

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED L. ABUBAKAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

BELLO ADAMU

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE STATE

2. GEOFREY ADAMU

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and one Geofrey Adamu were arraigned before the High Court of Taraba State, on a three-count charge, of Criminal Conspiracy, House Trespass and Homicide to which he pleaded “Not guilty” to all three counts when the charges were read out to him. The Appellant claimed to be present at the scene of the crime with his bow and arrow and did not in any way participate in the beating of the deceased person. At the trial, the Prosecution called two witnesses in proof of her case, PW1 (Ali Yakubu) and PW2 (A.S.P.) Iorahii Zanber. The Appellant testified in defence with one other witness, the 2nd Respondent.  At the close of the trial, the Appellant was convicted on the three-count charge.  The Appellant who was dissatisfied with the decision of the court, appealed to the Court of Appeal.  The Appellant contended that his right to have an interpreter is a constitutional one, which cannot be denied him, which the record of the court must also reflect or else, the proceedings would be a nullity.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the failure of the trial court to interpret the testimony of PW2 from English Language to Hausa Language that the Appellant speaks and understand does not amount to breach of fair hearing rendering the entire proceedings a nullity.

2. Whether the findings of the trial court as to the commission of the offence of culpable homicide accords with the testimony of PW1 and PW2 to warrant Appellant’s conviction.

3. Whether having regard to the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant as to ground a conviction.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING- CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 36(6)(E) OF THE CONSTITUTION

---

“It is true that where there is noncompliance with Section 36 (6) (e) of the Constitution (as amended) and Sections 241 and 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there would be a breach of the right to fair hearing of the Appellant.  This is the law.  Section 36 (6) (e) provides thus:

36 (6) “Every person who is charged with a Criminal Offence shall be entitled to

(e)   have, without payment the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the trial of the offence.”

 

---

ARRAIGNMENT- DUTY OF A COURT IN THE ARRAIGNMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“It is trite that the procedure during arraignment is for the trial court to record the name of the interpreter who read, interpreted and explained the charge to the accused person but, the failure or omission to reflect same in the record of proceedings is not always fatal to the proceedings so as to render the proceedings a nullity, it depends on the circumstances. Each case must be examined on its surrounding or peculiar circumstances, if the arraignment was carried out in a manner that is substantially regular, the procedure would remain valid.  In such a situation, it would be presumed that the action of the court has been done correctly and regularly until it is proved otherwise.  Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides thus:

168 (1) “When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.”

See, Shitta-Bey Vs. Ag Federation & Anor (1998) LPELR – 3055 (SC) PP. 54 – 55, PARAS. D – F, Ondo State University & Anor Vs. Folayan (1994) LPELR – 2673 (SC) P. 34, PARAS. E – G, Mamonu & Anor Vs. Dikat & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46560 (SC) P. 61, PARAS. C – E and Esseyin Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 44476 (SC) PP. 24 – 25, PARAS. E – A.

On the other hand, therefore, if no interpreter was used as shown in the records of the trial court, by the provisions of Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) as rightly argued by the Learned Senior State Counsel, the Appellant waived his right to have an interpreter in course of the proceedings. PER C.N. UWA, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

Criminal Procedure Code

Evidence Act, 2011

Penal Code

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT