CORAM

---

Jimi Olukayode Bada- Justice of the Court of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo- Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo- Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

OLUSEGUN RICHARD OLOGBE

APPELLANTS 

---

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, CONSPIRACY, AMENDMENT OF CHARGES, EVIDENCE, FAIR HEARING, APPEAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Olusegun Richard Ologbe, was charged alongside Alatise Oluwasanmi Samuel under the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015. They were accused of facilitating the travel of a victim, Okeda Mercy, into France for prostitution. The trial court convicted the Appellant of conspiracy, facilitating foreign travel for prostitution, and engaging in fraudulent activities. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court improperly amended the charges at the judgment stage without taking a fresh plea.

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and discharged and acquitted the Appellant. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in amending the charges without a fresh plea, thereby violating the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court erred by convicting the Appellant based on insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and the substantive offenses?.

2. Whether the trial court’s amendment of the charges at the judgment stage without taking a fresh plea violated the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing?.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONSPIRACY – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONVICTED THE APPELLANT FOR CONSPIRACY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

---

“The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant’s mere association with the co-accused and his presence at certain events were insufficient to establish his participation in a conspiracy.”

– Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

AMENDMENT OF CHARGES – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AMENDING THE CHARGES WITHOUT TAKING A FRESH PLEA FROM THE APPELLANT

---

“The Court held that the trial court breached the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing by unilaterally amending the charges from ‘attempt’ to the substantive offense without taking a fresh plea. This procedural error rendered the conviction invalid.”

– Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

FAILURE TO PROVE GUILT – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE APPELLANT’S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

---

“The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required in criminal trials. The evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial and did not conclusively establish the Appellant’s involvement in the alleged offenses.”

– Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

IMPROPER CONVICTION – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES DESPITE THE CHARGES BEING FOR ‘ATTEMPT’

---

“The Court ruled that the trial court erred by convicting the Appellant for the substantive offenses without giving him the opportunity to defend himself against the amended charges. This was a violation of the Appellant’s constitutional rights.”

– Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT