CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

OBINNA JOHN APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the High Court of Justice, Plateau State of Nigeria, the Appellant, was charged with the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to, and punishable under, Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, Cap 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. At the trial of the case, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the Charge. The Prosecution called three witnesses, PW1, PW2 and PW3. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were tendered. On his part, the Appellant testified as the sole witness. He tendered two exhibits, exhibits 4 and 5. Persuaded by the Prosecution’s case, the trial Court convicted the Appellant as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging. Having lost his appeal at the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, he has, further, appealed to this Court challenging the validity or otherwise of the charge on grounds that the charge was not signed by any known legal practitioner.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial, conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are a nullity in view of the signing of the charge dated 23rd day of October, 2008, for and on behalf of Mrs G. E. Dashe of the Plateau State Ministry of Justice?”

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY- INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

“It is no longer in doubt that Case Law has identified these constitutive ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, namely, that there was a robbery or series of robberies; that the robbers were armed and that the accused persons committed the said offence, Osuagwu v State (2016) LPELR – 40836 (SC) 12 – 13; Suberu v The State [2010] 8 NWLR (pt.1197) 586; Nwachukwu v The State [1985] 1 NWLR (pt. 110) 218; Alabi V The State [1993] 7 NWLR (pt. 307) 551; Olayinka v. The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1040) 561. Others include: BOZIN v State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 8) 465, 467; Okosun v AG, Bendel State (1985) 3 NWLR (pt 12) 283; Ikemson v State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 1100) 455; Adeosun v. State (2007) 46 WRN 1; Afolalu v The State [2010] 16 NWLR (pt 1220) 554; Aruna v The State [1990] 6 NWLR (pt 155) 125; Okosi v.The State [1989] 1 NWLR (pt 100) 642. –

---

OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY- DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION IN SECURING THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

“In order therefore to secure the conviction of an accused person for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must satisfy the requirements of these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Where this is not done, the case must fail. Put differently, it is the Prosecution’s proof of these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt that would warrant a guilty verdict from the Court of trial, Osuagwu v State (supra); Afolalu v The State (supra); The State v Isiaka (2013) LPELRÂ -20521 (SC); Bozin v State (supra) at 467; Alabi v State (supra); Olayinka v State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt.1040) 561; Osetola and Anor v The State [2012] 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 251, 275.” –

---

FAIR HEARING- PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING

---

“The fair hearing provision in the Constitution is the machinery or locomotive of justice; not a spare part to propel or invigorate the case of the user. It is not a casual principle of law available to a party to be picked up at will in a case and force the Court to apply it to his advantage. On the contrary, it is a formidable and fundamental constitutional provision available to a party who is really denied fair hearing because he was not heard or that he was not properly heard in the case. Let litigants who have nothing useful to advocate in favour of their cases, leave the fair hearing constitutional provision alone because it is not available to them just for the asking. [Italics supplied for emphasis].” –

---

CHARGE-STATUTORY PRESCRIPTION FOR A CHARGE

---

“By virtue of Section 36 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), every person who is charged with any offence shall be entitled to be informed, promptly, in the language he understands, and in detail, of the nature of the offence. Only one or two cases may be cited here to illustrate this point, Amala v State [2004] 12 NWLR (pt. 888) 520; Ezeze v State [2004] 14 NWLR Pt 894) 491; Okeke v The State [2003] 15 NWLR (pt. 842) 25; Madu v The State (2012) LPELR -7867 (SC); Solola v The State [2005] 11 NWLR (pt 937) 460. Ostensibly therefore, the statutory prescription that every charge shall state the offence for which the accused person is standing trial stems from this constitutional mandate. Occasionally however, charges so drafted may contravene any of the rules of drafting charges, such as the rules against ambiguity; duplicity; misjoinder of offenders and misjoinder of offences, see generally, Bob Osamor, Fundamentals of Criminal Procedure Law in Nigeria (Ojodu, Lagos: Dee-Sage Nigeria Limited,2004) 188; O. Doherty, Criminal Procedure in Nigeria Law and Practice (London; Blackstone Press Limited, 1999) 227; O. Onadeko, The Criminal Trial Procedure (Lagos: Lannon Nigeria Ltd, 1998).” –

---

OBJECTION TO A CHARGE-EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO OBJECT TO A FORMAL DEFECT ON A CHARGE TIMEOUSLY

---

“By Section 383 (supra), any objection to a charge for any formal defect [surely, an allegation bordering on the absence of the signature of a known legal practitioner is a formal defect] on the face thereof shall be taken immediately after the charge had been read over to the accused person and not later. Put differently, an accused person is under obligation to raise any objection to any formal defect to a charge before he takes his plea, Ogunye v The State [1999] 5 FWLR (pt.604) 545; Adeniji v The State[2001] 13 NWLR (pt.730) 375; Okeke v The State (2003) 5 SCM 131, 185-186; Solola and Anor v The State (2005) 6 SCM 137, 147; Okewu v FRN(2012) 1 NWLR (pt 1305) 327, 369. Where he fails to do so, he is presumed to have understood the charge preferred against him, Ogunye v The State (supra); Adeniji v The State (supra); Okeke v The State (supra); Solola and Anor v The State (supra); Okewu v FRN (supra).” –

---

OBJECTION TO A CHARGE-APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO A CHARGE

---

“It is trite law that the appropriate time to complain or object to a charge either as drawn up or formulated, is the time the charge is being read and before the plea. See; Elijah Ameh Okewu Vs. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) 4 SCM 18; (2012)2 SC (Pt.11) 1; (2012) 2 SCNJ 126; (2012) 49 NSCQR 330.” –

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS

---

“It is trite law that this Court would rarely interfere with concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below except where such concurrent findings of facts appear to be perverse, occasion a miscarriage of justice, unreasonable and against the evidence adduced, or in violation of some principle of law and procedure. In such circumstances, this Court would not allow such perverse findings to stand. See Ogbu v. State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 259) 255; Ogba v. State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 164: Bright v. State (2012)8 NWLR (Pt. 1302) 297 Ikenta Best (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Attorney-General Rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084). It has also become trite that our Courts have long departed from the era of technicalities to doing substantial justice between parties. See Omoju v. FRN (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1085) 38; Oloruntoba-Oju vs. Abdul- Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83.” –

---

CHARGE- APPROPRIATE TIME TO COMPLAIN OR OBJECT TO A CHARGE

---

“The main complaint advanced by the Appellant in this appeal upon which he wants this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts is that the charge was not signed by any known legal practitioner. This observation was brought to the fore long after the Appellant (as accused) had taken his plea and subsequently convicted for the offence preferred against him, after trial. On this point, I agree with the submission of the Respondent’s counsel that the appellant having failed to raise objection to the charge before plea, it has become too late to object. In the case of Okewu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 327 at 352 paragraphs E, this Court per Ariwoola, JSC observed that:
“If there had been any defect or an ambiguity in the charge, the appellant should not have responded with his plea when the charge was read. He should have objected at the reading of the charge. The appropriate time to complain or object to a charge as drawn up, is at the time it is being read and before the plea.” –

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT -WHETHER A COURT CAN SAFELY CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON BASED ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“It is settled law that a confessional statement is the best evidence in our criminal procedure. Once it is admitted in evidence; the trial Court can safely convict an accused person based on his confessional statement. See Solola v. State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460. Igri v. State (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1327) 522 at 542.” –

---

CHARGE- NATURE OF A CHARGE

---

“The important thing about “the Charge” in a criminal case is that it must tell the Accused Person enough, so that he may know the case alleged against him and prepare his defence- see Ogbomor V. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 223, wherein Oputa, JSC, further explained that:
The fact that a Charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case – – The Charge must not, therefore, have defects or errors, which could mislead the Accused. The emphasis is not, on whether or not there were defects, errors or omissions in the Charge, but on whether or not those defects, errors or omission could and did in fact mislead the Defence. Subject to the above, a defect, error or omission, which does not prejudice the Defence, is no ground for quashing a conviction on a Charge for a known offence. –

---

OBJECTION TO A CHARGE – APPROPRIATE TIME FOR TAKING AN OBJECTION FOR ANY FORMAL DEFECT ON A CHARGE

---

It is also settled that any objection to a Charge for any formal defect on the face of it shall be taken immediately after the Charge has been read over to the Accused; not later.”
–

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

2. Robbery and Firearms Act, Cap 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.|

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---