Supreme Court – May 22nd, 2015

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER[2015]SC.163/2011

Areas of Law

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, STATUTE

Summary of Facts
The Appellant was arrested by a team of Police Officers for dealing in 750 grams of cannabis sativa also known as Indian Hemp which is a drug similar to cocaine, heroin or LSD, contrary to and punishable undersection 10 (c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap. 253, Law of the Federation of Nigeria. The Appellant was taken by the police to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) office with the drug exhibits recovered from him and he made a statement to the officers of the NDLEA. Upon arraignment and the charge read, he pleaded guilty and the facts including various documents were tendered by the prosecutor before the court. The learned trial judge discharged the Appellant inspite of his constitutional plea and ordered the destruction of the exhibits.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Appeal was allowed with a consequential order that the case be remitted for reassignment to another judge of the trial Court on the merits de novo. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court which had earlier on discharged him, the Appellant filed an appeal to the apex Court.

Held
Appeal Dismissed

Issue for Determintion
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to raise suo motu, the issue of the trial court not according both the prosecution and defence the opportunity to address him on the issue of lack of speedy trial without inviting counsel to address it having regard to the right of fair hearing

Rationes
NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACT – SECTION 10 (C) OF THE NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACT
“Section 10 (c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act cap.253, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 1990 states thus:
“Any person who, without lawful authority, sells, buys, exposes or offers for sale or otherwise deals in or with drugs popularly known as cocaine, LSD, Heroine or any other similar drugs shall be guilty ofan offence and liable on conviction to be sentencedto imprisonment for life.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

CRIMINAL TRIAL – DUTY OF THE COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE MATTER AFTER THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN TAKEN
“It is trite law that, the taking of plea of an accused completes an arraignment and the next step, ordinarily after the plea has been taken, should be for the court to proceed with the hearing of the matter. See; Uwafor Okegbu Vs The State (1979) 11 SC 1.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

PLEA OF GUILT – ONCE AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO IS STANDING TRIAL PLEADS TO A CHARGE, ADMITTING HIS GUILT OR OTHERWISE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST HIM
“The law is that once an accused person standing trial pleads to a charge before the trial court, without any objection, it is presumed that he understands the charge preferred against him, moreso, if he speaks the language of the court, which here in Nigeria is English language. See;Okewu Vs FRN (2012) 4 SCM 118; (2012) 2 SC(Pt.ll) 1; Adeyemi Vs The State (2013) 8 SCM 37; (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt.1373) 129, (2012) 4 SCNJ 120.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

EFFECT OF PLEA OF GUILTY – SECTIONS 218 & 285 (1) & (2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
“The procedural law in relation to the instant case are Sections 218 and 285 (1) & (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The said law states thus:”Section 218 – Effect of plea of guilty.
If the accused pleads guilty to any offence with which he is charged, the court shall record his plea as nearly as possible in the words used by him and if satisfied that he intended to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence of which he had pleaded guilty, the court shall convict him of that offence and pass sentence upon or make an order against him unless there shall appear sufficient cause to the contrary,”
On the manner of hearing – Section 285 inter alia states thus;
“1. At the commencement of the hearing, the court shall state or cause to be stated to the defendant the substance of the complaint, and shall ask him whether he is guilty or not guilty.
2. If the defendant says that he is guilty and the court is satisfied that he intends to admit the offence and shows no cause or no sufficient cause why sentence should not be passed the court shall proceed to sentence.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE – SECTION 36(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999
“The issue of speedy trial of a criminal charge is a constitutional requirement. Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides as follows:
“Section 36 (6) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to –
a. be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in details of the nature of the offence;
b. be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c. defend himself in person or by legal practitioner of his own choice;
d. examine, in person or by his legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution;
e. have, without payment, the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the trial of the offence.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU – IMPROPRIETY OF THE COURT RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU AND RESOLVING SAME WITHOUT GIVING THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT 
“It is trite law that when an issue is not placed before a court, it ordinarily has no business whatsoever in dealing with it. And on no account should a court of law raise a point suo motu no matter how clear it may appear to be and proceed to resolve it one way or the other without hearing the parties, in particular, the party that may be affected adversely, as a result of the point so raised. If the court does so, it will be in breach of the party’s right to fair hearing. See;Yekini Abass & Ors Vs. Mogaji& Ors (2001) 11 SCM 1Hon. E.O. Araka Vs Ambrose N. Ejeagwu(2001) 1 SCM 50, Bola Tinubu Vs. I.M.B.Securities Plc(2001) 12 SCM 73;Victino Fixed Odds Ltd Vs. J. Ojo & Ors (2010) 4 SCM 127”.PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE CLEAR AND DISTILLED FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL
“Issue raised for determination must be clear and distilled from the ground of Appeal. It is then the arguments and references of parties to indepth legal authorities pro and con on the issue can be canvassed: See Eze V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.51) 506; Weide And Co. (Nigeria) Ltd V. Weid And Co. Hamburg (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 249) p 627.”PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.

INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE – THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT TO BE RESTRUCTURED BY THE COURT
“The situation has been spelt out in that piece of legislation being S.218 CPA which has placed on display the intendment of the legislature and that is not for the restructuring by the court in the name of interpretation. This is so because each arm of the government must keep within its own boundaries of duty, the legislature making law and in this case where its intention is clear and leaves no room for guesswork, effect must be given to those words. Then the judiciary or the courts for adjudication within the specific ambit of those words of the statute. See Ugwu v Ararume(2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367:Bamaiyi v A. G. Federation(2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 727) 468 at 497.”PER M.U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

Statutes Referred to
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Criminal Procedure Act Cap 41 Laws of the Federation 2004
National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here