Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 97785 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Fri Mar 1, 2024

Suit Number: SC.355C/2019

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro Justice, Supreme Court

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice, Supreme Court

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice, Supreme Court

Tijjani Abubakar Justice, Supreme Court

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice, Supreme Court

PARTIES

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

APPELLANTS

CHARLES AKAEZE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

Criminal Law , Constitutional Law , Evidence Law , Criminal Procedure , Administrative Law

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent, Charles Akaeze, alongside two others, was charged before the Federal High Court on two counts: conspiracy and failure to declare the sum of $102,885 to officers of the Nigerian Customs Service at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos. This was in violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act of 2011 (as amended). During trial, the Prosecution attempted to admit the Respondent’s extra-judicial statements as evidence. However, the defense objected, arguing that the statements were involuntarily made without adhering to the provisions of Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. After a trial-within-trial, the trial court admitted the statements as evidence, leading the Respondent to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Respondent, rejecting the statements and ordering the case to be retried before another judge. Dissatisfied, the Federal Government brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, ruling that the provisions of Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA are mandatory, and the failure to comply with these provisions renders the extra-judicial statements inadmissible. It also agreed that the comments made by the trial judge indicated potential bias, necessitating the reassignment of the case to another judge.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the provisions of Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA are mandatory, and thus the extra-judicial statements should be rejected?
2. Whether the lower court was right to set aside the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the extra-judicial statements based on procedural non-compliance?
3. Whether the comments of the trial judge in relation to the case implied partiality and justified the reassignment of the case to another judge?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MANDATORY NATURE OF SECTIONS 15(4) AND 17(2) OF THE ACJA – COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR ADMISSIBILITY

“Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 mandate that extra-judicial statements by a suspect must be recorded in the presence of a legal practitioner or other specified individuals. Failure to comply with these provisions renders such statements inadmissible.”
– Per Saulawa, J.S.C.

FAILURE TO RECORD CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACJA – RENDERS THEM INADMISSIBLE

“Where there is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA, such non-compliance affects the admissibility of a confessional statement, as it may not have been voluntarily made.”
– Per Ogunwumiju, J.S.C

PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION – NEED FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION DURING STATEMENTS

“The ACJA aims to safeguard the rights of suspects, including the right to not incriminate oneself without proper legal oversight during the making of extra-judicial statements. These provisions protect against coercion or undue influence by law enforcement officers.”

– Per Saulawa, J.S.C.

PARTIALITY OF JUDGES – WHEN REASSIGNMENT OF A CASE IS JUSTIFIED

“Where a judge’s comments or conduct during trial suggest bias or partiality, it is in the interest of justice that the case be reassigned to another judge to ensure impartial adjudication.”
– Per Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS WITHOUT COMPLIANCE TO ACJA – UNRELIABLE

“Statements taken in violation of statutory requirements cannot be given any weight or credibility in court proceedings, as they fail to meet the standards for admissibility.”

– Per Saulawa, J.S.C.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY GUIDELINES IN CONFESSION TAKING – BREACH OF FAIR HEARING

“Failure to comply with Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA constitutes a violation of the accused’s right to a fair hearing, as it impacts the voluntariness and reliability of confessional statements.”

– Per Agim, J.S.C.

NECESSITY OF TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL TO TEST VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONS

“Where the voluntariness of a confession is contested, a trial-within-trial must be conducted to ascertain whether the confessional statement was made freely and voluntarily, in compliance with statutory safeguards.”

– Per Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.

COERCED CONFESSIONS – NOT ADMISSIBLE IN NIGERIAN COURTS

“Any statement obtained through coercion, intimidation, or failure to comply with procedural safeguards cannot be admitted as evidence, as it violates both the spirit and letter of the law.”

– Per Agim, J.S.C.

IMPROPER COMMENTS BY TRIAL JUDGE – GROUNDS FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE

“A trial judge’s comments that suggest pre-judgment or bias towards a particular outcome are sufficient grounds for reassignment of the case to another judge to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”

– Per Saulawa, J.S.C.

JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY MUST BE PRESERVED – GROUNDS FOR CASE REASSIGNMENT

“To maintain public confidence in the judiciary, it is essential that cases be reassigned where there is evidence of bias or partiality from the presiding judge.”

– Per Abubakar, J.S.C.

MANDATORY INTERPRETATION OF ‘MAY’ IN THE ACJA – JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

“In the context of the ACJA, the use of ‘may’ in Sections 15(4) and 17(2) must be interpreted as mandatory, in line with the overall intention to protect the rights of suspects and ensure fair trials.”
– Per Agim, J.S.C.

BURDEN ON PROSECUTION TO PROVE VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

“The burden rests on the prosecution to establish that a confessional statement was made voluntarily and in compliance with statutory requirements. Failure to do so renders the statement inadmissible.”
– Per Abubakar, J.S.C.

SUSPECTS’ RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION – MANDATORY DURING CONFESSION TAKING

“Under the ACJA, suspects are entitled to have legal representation present during the taking of their confessional statements. Non-compliance with this requirement invalidates the statement’s admissibility.”

– Per Saulawa, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT