Paul Onyia Vs The State (2008)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. OGEBE, J.S.C.

This is a further appeal to the Supreme Court by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of appeal, Port Harcourt Division delivered on the in December 2005 in which that Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant by Imo State High Court sitting in Umuahia on the 18th December 1987.

The appellant was charged in High Court of Imo State with the murder of one Ugwuochi Amadiegwu, contrary to section 219(1) of the Criminal Code cap. 30 of the laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963 applicable in Imo State. The simple fact of the case was that the appellant on the 18th December 1980 stabbed the deceased with a dagger resulting in his death. As the facts of the case are not in issue before this Court, I shall not go into any more details.

The main complaint before this Court is contained in the appellant’s brief on issue 1, which reads:

“Whether the non-interpretation of the evidence of Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, and Pw4 rendered in Igbo, the translation of the same by the learned trial Judge suo motu culminating in its judgment and the affirmation of it by the Court of Appeal, did not violate the appellant’s right to fair hearing and nullify thereby all the findings and conclusions of guilt against the appellant”.

Issue two of the appellant’s brief reads:

“If Issue 1 is answered in the appellant’s favour, what is the proper or appropriate order to be made in the circumstances Is it a trial de novo or an acquittal”

This issue does not arise from any ground of appeal and is totally irrelevant. The question of the proper order to make if an appeal is allowed cannot properly form the basis of an issue in an appeal. Such a matter is purely within the discretion of an appellate court. Accordingly, the second issue is incompetent and I hereby strike it out.

It should be noted that the appellant who was represented by counsel in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal did not complain of the non-interpretation of the evidence of any of the witnesses from Igbo to English. He is raising the issue for the first time in the Supreme Court with its leave. The learned counsel for the appellant complained that Pw1, Pw2, Pw3 and Pw4 gave evidence in Igbo language but their evidence was never interpreted by a court interpreter into English. This in his submission was contrary to section 33(6) of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria and led to a miscarriage of justice. He relied on the case of suit no SC.328/2001″ Godwin Anyanwu v. The State (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 783) 107.

In reply to this submission the learned Attorney-General of Abia State who appeared for the respondent submitted that although some witnesses spoke in Igbo before the trial court, there was no violation of the appellant’s right under section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution because the appellant and his witnesses gave evidence also in Igbo which showed clearly that he understood the language of the witnesses for the prosecution who testified against him. He relied heavily on the cases The State v. Gwonto (1983) All NLR 109 and Godwin Anyanwu v. The State (supra). He urged the court to follow its previous decision that the non-indication of the interpretation in proceedings does not ipso facto render the trial a nullity.

As the trial of the appellant was concluded before the coming into operation of the 1999 Constitution the applicable law is section 33(6) of the 1979 Constitution which reads.

“Every person charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled:

(a) to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence.

(e) to have without payment the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language at the trial of the offence”.