SANI ILIYA & ANOR. v, THE STATE
March 31, 2025MOSES EDE OGBONNA V INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
March 31, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 61168
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jul 23, 2020
Suit Number: CA/A/452C/2018
CORAM
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
SALIHU. M. A. BELGORE
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
SALIHU. M. A. BELGORE
PARTIES
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
1. AZIBAOLA ROBERT2. MRS. STELLA AZIBAOLA ROBERT 3. ONE-PLUS HOLDINGS NIGERIA LTD
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Upon the conclusion of an investigation conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Appellant by an amended Charge arraigned the Respondents before the trial court on a nine count charge bothering on the offences of Money Laundering and Conspiracy. The Defendants/Respondents pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Respondents filed a No-case Submission. In a considered ruling, the trial court held that the No case Submission succeeded in part. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant has appealed to this court. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection urging the court to dismiss the appeal as same is incompetent that since the substantive matter at the trial court had been concluded and the Appellant did not appeal on it, this interlocutory appeal has become academic.
HELD
Preliminary Objection Overruled, Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether a prima facie case was made out against each of the respondents to warrant calling on each of them to enter a defence.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
“This is because a Preliminary Objection is aimed at scuttling the hearing of a matter or an aspect of a matter before the court by its intendment, it has to be determined as a threshold matter. See Obasi v. Mikson Establishment Industries Ltd., (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1539) 335.
NO CASE SUBMISSION – DUTY OF COURT WHEN A NO CASE SUBMISSION IS MADE
“It is essentially correct and apt to say right away that in a criminal trial where the charge contains more than one count such as is prevalent in the instant case, each count of the charge is distinct and different from the other counts of the charge. In fact, each count is deemed to be a charge on its own. That is why in taking plea, each count must be read separately to the accused and he must plead separately to them. Where a submission of no case is made as in the instant case, the court is duty bound to look at the evidence before it and see if the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses called before the court”.
NO CASE SUBMISSION – FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE OF A NO CASE SUBMISSION
“The fundamental essence of a no case submission is that, in law, there is no evidence on which, even if believed, the court could convict. The question whether or not the evidence is believed is immaterial and does not arise. Furthermore, the credibility of the witnesses is not in issue. It is also important to note that at the stage of a no case submission the court is not required to express an opinion on the evidence before it. The reason is that at that stage, the trial has been concluded. See the cases of Ibeziako v. C.O.P (1963) 1 SCNLR 99, Ajibade v. IGP (1958) SCNLR 60; Tongo v. COP (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1383) 322; Adeyemi v. State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 195) 1; Agbo v. State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1365) 377, Igabele v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 100, Aituma v. State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 466 referred to in the case of Amah v. FRN (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 160”.
NO CASE SUBMISSION – APPROPRIATE TIME FOR RAISING A NO CASE SUBMISSION
“A submission of no case is always made at the end of the case of the Prosecution. The import of this is that the prosecution who brought the charges against the accused persons has produced before the trial court all the evidence which it believed would be enough to prove all the ingredients of the offences for which the accused persons were charged. This is against the backdrop of the fact that under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.
This presumption of innocence inures for everyone accused of committing any criminal offence of any dimension and any magnitude. For this presumption to be dismantled, the prosecution must prove the charge against the person accused beyond reasonable doubt. This level of proof is the ultimate in criminal trial. This can only be attained at the conclusion of trial. A criminal trial is not concluded with the closure of the case of the prosecution. It is only concluded when both the prosecution and the accused persons have presented their respective cases. In our criminal trial the law is mindful of the rigors of subjecting a person charged with an offence to full blown trial by the court. The law therefore, gives a window of respite for any person accused to pry on the option of making a no case submission at the close of the case of the Prosecution where there is no prima facie case disclosed from the case of the Prosecution. Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (to be referred to as ACJA for short), provides as follows:
303.(1)Where the defendant or his legal practitioner makes a no case submission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the court shall call on the prosecutor to reply.
2.The defendant or his legal practitioner has the right to reply to any new point of law raised by the prosecutor, after the court shall give its ruling.
3.In considering the application of the defendant under Section 303, the court shall, in the exercise of its discretion, have regard to whether –
(a)an essential element of the offence has been proved;
(b)there is evidence linking the defendant with the commission of the offence with which he is charged;
(c)the evidence so far led is such that no reasonable court or tribunal would convict on its; and
(d)any other ground on which the court may find that a prima facie case has not been made out against the defendant for him to be called upon to answer.
–
NO CASE SUBMISSION – PARAMETERS OF A SUCCESSFUL NO CASE SUBMISSION
“Over the years, our courts have evolved the parameters of a successful no case submission. A submission that the accused has no case to answer will succeed in the following circumstances:
(a)Where the prosecution fails to prove an essential element of the offence;
(b)Where the evidence led by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination, or is so manifested unreliable that no reasonable tribunal would safely convict on it.
See – Ajiboye v. State (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 414) 406; Daboh v. State (1977) 5 SC 197; Tongo v. COP (2007) 12 NWLR (1049) 525; Ajuluchukwu v. State (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1425) 641; COP v. Amuta (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1556) 379. It is all a matter of whether the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution disclosed prima facie case as alleged in each of the counts of the charge. It is certainly factual and definite that evidence is the anchor on which the case of the Prosecution is hoisted in a criminal trial. In the case of Oteki v. A.G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 648, Oputa, JSC held that:
The sole object and end of evidence is therefore to ascertain the truth of a disputed fact or several disputed facts, or in ornate legal phraseology to resolve point in issue. Proof is the logically sufficient reason for assenting to the truth of a proposition advanced. In its juridical sense, proof will include and comprehend everything that may be adduced at the trial, within legal rules, for the purpose of producing conviction in the mind of the judge or jury. The whole and entire exercise is to discover the truth of the point in issue. And truth is not discovered by majority vote, by counting hands or heads. No one witness who is believed will carry more conviction than ten witnesses who are disbelieved or whose testimonies do not induce belief. Although belief is subjective, yet still the judge before believing will subject the evidence to the objective test of probability. Where the facts deposed to by a witness look probable when considered in relation to all the surrounding circumstances of the case, they induce belief. Probability is always s safe guide to the sanctuary where truth resides. As Aristotle once put it – “Probability has never been detected bearing a false testimony”.
At the point of making a no case submission, the issue of believing the evidence of witnesses or assessing credibility of witnesses has not yet arisen. The issue is whether there is a prima facie case disclosed as to enable the court invite the Respondent to enter their respective defence”.
OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – PRINCIPLES OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy to commit an offence it must be borne in mind is a separate and distinct offence and it is independent of the actual commission of the main offence to which the conspiracy is related. Conspiracy consists of the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, to do a lawful act by unlawful means. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express or in the part implied. The offence of conspiracy is therefore, committed as soon as the agreement is made, and the offence continues to be committee so long as the combination persists, until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The mental element in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. In a charge of conspiracy, for the prosecution to establish that there was conspiracy to commit an offence, the following are required to be proved:
(a)That there was an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which, though not illegal but by illegal means;
(b)Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence, that some acts besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement.
(c)Specifically, that each of the accused individually participated in the conspiracy.
However, it is settled law that there need not be an express agreement before common intention can be shown in conspiracy. It can be implied from the circumstance of the case. See the case of Mohammed Ismail v. FRN 79 NSCQR 314. See the decision of Ariwoola, JSC. Invariably, it is therefore, effectual that the grain of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful or not to do something that is lawful or doing something lawful in an unlawful way and there cannot be conspiracy unless there are conspirators.
PRIMA FACIE CASE – MEANING OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
“A prima facie case means that there is ground or reason for the court to proceed with the trial and that the evidence has disclosed an allegation which if uncontradicted and believed will be sufficient to prove the case. See Atoyebi v. FRN (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 350, Kalu v. FRN & Ors (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 1, Oko v. State (20017) 17 NWLR (pt. 1593) 24.
NO CASE SUBMISSION – DUTY OF COURT IN AN APPLICATION OF NO CASE SUBMISSION
“What the court is expected to do in an application of no case is to x-ray the evidence put in by the prosecution and see whether any believable evidence remained intact to support conviction’.
OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 15 (2) THE MONEY LAUNDERING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 (AS AMENDED)
“The law under which the Respondent were charged is the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011 (as amended), Section 15 (2) provides:
Any person or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, who directly or indirectly –
(a)conceals or disguises the origin of;
(b)convert or transfer;
(c)removes from the jurisdiction; or
(d)acquires, uses, retains or takes possession or control of; any fund or property, knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such fund or property is, or forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act; commits an offence of money laundering under this Act.
This provision of Section 15(2) of the Money Laundering Act, 2011 is very plain and direct. There is no plain and direct. There is no need for any construction before its intendment and meaning is arrived at. It is basic that in interpreting any, the settled principle is that where words used are devoid of ambiguity, same must be given their plain, ordinary and natural meaning. See Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531, Skye Bank v. Iwu (2017) LPELR – 42595 (SC)”.
OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING – REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSUMMATION OF THE OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING
“In the instant case, the law as in Section 15(2) (b) of the MLA requires anyone or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, who directly or indirectly converts or transfers any fund or property, knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such fund or property is, or forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act, commits an offence of money laundering. The requirements for the consummation of this offence are:
(a)that a person or company directly or indirectly converts or transfers any fund or property;
(b)that the person or company knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such property or fund forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act.
–
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended),|Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 as amended in 2012.|
