OKOYE & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CORAM

A.I. IGUH JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS     JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. EBELE OKOYE

2. EJIKE OKOYE

APPELLANTS 

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This consolidated appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The facts of the case are that the Accused/Appellants alongside some other persons were arraigned at the Chief Magistrate Court, Awka on the 24th of May, 2006 on a seven count charge amongst which were conspiracy to commit felony, malicious damages to properties and assault on police officers. The Accused/Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and upon an application by his counsel, he was granted bail. However, on 3/8/06, the counsel representing the Accused/Appellants brought an application for an order of the court directing the Prosecution/Respondent to furnish the defence with all the documents which are relevant to the case. Though the Prosecution/Respondent opposed this application on the ground that the CPL did not provide for the upfront of relevant documents in summary trials, the Chief magistrate Court however ordered that photocopies of the documents to be relied upon be produced to the Accused/Appellants, howbeit, cost of such production should be borne by the Accused/Appellant. Counsel to the Accused/Appellants then went further to write a petition addressing it to the Inspector General of Police, Assistant Inspector-General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police Anambra State, accusing the prosecuting counsel of compromising his position in the case. Counsel to the Accused/Appellants also filed a notice to produce in the Chief Magistrate Court. Displeased by the decision of the Chief Magistrate Court, the Prosecution/Respondent appealed against the decision to the Anambra State High court, Awka, where the decision of the Chief Magistrate Court was affirmed. Further displeased, the Prosecution/Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, the Accused/Appellants counsel contended that whether in civil or criminal cases, parties are compelled through front-loading to disclose their evidence prior to the hearing, and stated that full disclosure of evidence prior to trial was constitutionally mandatory. The Court of Appeal disagreed with this position, upturned the decision of the High Court and remitted the case back to the Chief Magistrate Court for the Accused/Appellants to take their plea before trial commenced. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Accused/Appellants have appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

1. When is an accused person entitled to facilities for the preparation of his defence as provided in section 36 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and what are the facilities?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU – DUTY ON A COURT NOT TO RAISE AN ISSUE AND DECIDE ON SAME WITHOUT AFFORDING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

“The position of the law is that a court is not entitled to raise an issue and decide on it without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. This is because in doing so the court is seen to leave its exalted position as impartial arbiter and descend into the arena of conflict. See; Kuti Vs Balogun (1978) 1 SC 53 @ 60: Obawole Vs Williams (19961 10 NWLR (Pt.4771 146; Stirling Civil Eng. (Nig.)Ltd. Vs Yahaya (20051 11 NWLR (Pt.9351 181: Omokuwajo Vs F.R.N. (20131 9 NWLR (Pt.13591 300: Ominiyi Vs Alabi (20151 LPELR -SC.41/2004”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF THE COURT TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN A STATUTE

“It is a fundamental or primary duty of the court to ascertain the natural meaning of the words used in a statute. The court must not speculate or write into the statute words which the legislature did not use”. PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C

COURT – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT NOT TO MAKE CASE FOR PARTIES

“An appellate court is also not entitled to raise an issue not raised by either of the parties at the trial court or on appeal and base its decision thereon without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. The court, being an impartial arbiter, must never be seen to be making a case for one of the parties”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

CHARGE – WHAT CONSTITUTES A FORMAL CHARGE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON?

“A person is “charged” with a criminal offence when he is formally accused of having committed an offence. The formal accusation in writing is what constitutes the charge against him. Once he is made aware of the charge against him he is entitled to commence the preparation of his defence. This is when the provisions of Section 36 (6) (b) of the Constitution will be activated”. PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – WHERE WORDS USED IN A STATUTE ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THEY MUST BE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY MEANING

“The golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that where the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)1999.Criminal Procedure CodeCriminal Procedure Law of Anambra StateHigh Court of Anambra State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT