CORAM
PARTIES
ORJI UZOR KALU APPELLANTS
FEDERATION
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Series of petitions were filed against the Appellant and some other persons before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) bordering on abuse of office, corruption and money laundering. It was however revealed during the course of the investigation that the Appellant who was the Governor of Abia State from May 1999 to May 2007 incorporated the 3rd Respondent, Slok Nigeria, wherein he was a shareholder. The 1st Respondent alleged that billions of naira belonging to Abia State were fraudulently withdrawn and illegally converted into drafts for the personal use of the Appellant through the 3rd Respondent. In addition, the Appellant was accused of awarding contracts to companies wherein he had interest amongst others, hence criminal charges were filed against the Appellant and some other officials of the Abia State Government at the Federal High Court Lagos. Due to the official immunity provided by the constitution, the charge against the Appellant was withdrawn. Subsequently when the Appellant, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were arraigned at the Federal High Court Abuja, he approached the Federal High Court, Lagos, and Federal High Court, Umuahia Abia State, seeking an injunction restraining the EFCC from arresting, detaining and prosecuting him. When he failed to secure the restraining order in these courts, the Appellant filed an application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights at the Abia State High Court, Umuahia, and the court made an exparte order granting a stay of all actions until the determination of the motion on notice. The Appellant relying on the order, argued before the Federal High Court that he can no longer be prosecuted pending the determination of his motion on notice and prayed the court to quash the charge against him on grounds that no prima facie case was disclosed against him. The 1st Respondent opposed the application and the trial judge in a considered ruling, dismissed the Appellant’s motion to quash the charges preferred against him. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was dismissed hence a further appeal to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the court below was right when it held in sum that a charge preferred against an accused person contrary to the terms of an order made by a court of competent Jurisdiction is not thereby violated (Grounds 1 and 2) ?
2. Whether the court below was right in holding that the proof of evidence discloses a prima facie case (Ground 5) ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT TO PERSONALITY AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT – SECTION 35 AND 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
“The rights to personality and freedom of movement respectively enshrined in Sections 35 and 41 of the said Constitution are subject to the procedure permitted by law and for the purpose of bringing the Appellant before a court of law in execution of a court order or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS –INSTANCE WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS
“Where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings of facts by the trial Court and the appeal Court this Court should not disturb the findings. See Njoku & Ors v. Eme & Ors (1973) SC 293 at 306; Kale v. Coker (1982) 12 SC 252 at 271.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.
PRIMA FACIE CASE- DETERMINATION OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
“In Ikomi v. State (1986) 5 SC 226, the Supreme Court had this to say:
“The question is in all these circumstances, can it be justly said that there is nothing linking the appellants with the offence? I think there is. I hold that there was a prima facie case on the face of those proofs of evidence… I am of the view that.. all that is required at the point when a judge grants consent to prefer information is that there be evidence which requires some explanation.” (Underlining mine).
The term, prima facie case, answers the questions on the face of the proof of evidence; is there a ground for proceeding? Does the proof of evidence disclose an offence or offences and if so, is the accused linked with the offence as to require him to explain his involvement therein?” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION – DUTY AND FUNCTION OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
“Sections 6 (m) and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act vest in EFCC the function and duty of investigating and prosecuting persons reasonably suspected to have committed economic and financial crimes. For a person to rush to court to place a clog or shield against criminal investigation and prosecution is a clear interference with the powers given by law and the constitution to EFCC in the conduct of criminal investigation and prosecution. It is clearly an abuse of due process of the law. See Abacha V. FRN. (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1402) 43 at 112, Dariye V. FRN. (2015) 2 SCM P.46 at 68.AttorneyGeneral Of Anambra V. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947)44 at 67.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING – SECTION 17 OF THE MONEY LAUNDERING (PROHIBITION) ACT 2014
“Section 17 of the said Act creates the offence of conspiracy, aiding and abetting the offence of money laundering. It provides:
17. Any person who –
(a) Conspires with, aids, abets or counsels any other person to commit an offence, or
(b) Attempts to commit or is an accessory to an act or offence, or
(c) Incites, procures or induces any other person by any means whatsoever to commit any offence, under this Act, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the same punishment as prescribed for that offence under this Act.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
PRIMA-FACIE – MEANING OF PRIMA-FACIE
“Prima facie” is the establishment of a legally required reputable presumption. Prima facie is not the same thing as the proof which comes later when the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
PRIMA-FACIE CASE – DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE INFORMATION
“What the information must disclose is not the guilt of the accused person but only a prima facie case for the accused to answer. Ikomi V The State (1986) 3 NWLR (PL 28) 340 at 376.”PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
PROOF OF CRIMINAL ALLEGATION –STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL ALLEGATION
“The standard of proof as to whether or not the accused is guilty of the criminal allegation is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO