CORAM
AKINTAN
PARTIES
MRS. E.A. LUFADEJU AND ANOR APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant brought this appeal against the setting aside of the ruling of the high court. The respondents were charged with treason and treasonable felony. They were presented before a chief magistrate court in remand proceeding, whereat the bail was declined for want of jurisdiction. They respondents applied to the high court for judicial review, joining the Magistrate as a party, which was dismissed. The respondent successfully appealed to the court of Appeal. The appellant brought this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed .
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the proceedings before the 1st Appellant on the 12th of March, 1997 was an arraignment proceeding as opposed to a remand proceeding and that consequently once the 1st Appellant lacked jurisdiction to try the respondent for treasonable felony she could not remand him under Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law.2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap 32 Volume 2 Laws of Lagos State, 1994 is in direct conflict with Section 32 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (now Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution) and other relevant constitutional provisions and whether the above-mentioned Section 236 (3) of the CPL is in effect unconstitutional.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROCEDURE FOR REMAND
“It follows therefore that whereas in a remand proceeding the suspect may be brought to the magistrate court upon a charge signed by the Police Officer in charge of the case, he is not required to plead to that charge particularly as the offence with which the person stands charged, being an indictable offence, is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate court to try, an arraignment or trial under section 215 supra cannot be properly so called unless the accused pleads to the charge containing the offence with which he is charged”. (W.S.N. ONNOGHEN, JSC)
JURISDICTION OF THE MAGISTRATE TO REMAND A SUSPECT IN CUSTODY PENDING THE ARRAIGNMENT OF SUCH PERSON BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT WITH THE REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SAID INDICTABLE OFFENCE.
“From the above provisions it is very clear that for a magistrate to have jurisdiction to act thereunder, the person to be remanded or possibly granted bail where the court has the jurisdiction to so grant, must have been arrested for an indictable offence such as treasonable felony which is outside the competence or jurisdiction of the magistrate to try. In such a situation the magistrate is empowered, upon the suspect being brought before him, to remand the suspect in custody pending the arraignment of such person before a competent court with the requisite jurisdiction to try the said indictable offence. From the wordings of section 236(3) supra, it is obvious that the section does not contemplate the proceedings for remand before the magistrate to be an arraignment since it provides specifically that the remand of the suspect by the magistrate in the circumstance is pending an arraignment of such a suspect before the appropriate court or tribunal for trial”. (W.S.N. ONNOGHEN, JSC)
WHEN DOES ARRAIGNMENT COMMENCE
“Arraignment therefore involves two things. One, the reading of the charge or information to the accused. Two, the response to the charge or information by a plea from the accused. The plea can either be guilty or not guilty. It is only when the above procedure is followed that a court of law will be said to have taken arraignment proceedings. ” – PER NIKI TOBI J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Asakitikpi v. The State (1993) 5NWLR (pt.296)641 at 6522. Tobby v. State 2001 10 NWLR part 720 page 23 at page 33 (2001) 6 SCM, 178
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.2. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.3. The Criminal Procedure Law, Law Cap 32 Volume 2 Laws of Lagos State, 1994