Sumanya Issah Torri .v. The National Park Service Of Nigeria (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

On the 5th day of April, 2004, Leave to prefer criminal charges against the appellant herein, was granted to the respondent by the Niger State High Court of Justice (trial court) holden at New Bussa. Subsequently, a three count charge of (i) illegal entry into Sheffini area of the Kainji Lake of the National Park within the New Bussa Judicial Division (referred to hereinafter as “The National Park”), (ii) illegal hunting and killing of animals within the National Park and (iii) illegal possession of weapons within the National park was preferred against the appellant, contrary to sections 30(1) 31 (1) (a) and 32 (1) of the National Park Service Act No.1 16 of 1999 ( the “Act”) respectively and punishable under section 38 (1); 38 (2) and 38 (3) of the Act respectively. The appellant pleaded guilty to each of the counts as contained in the charge, He was convicted and sentenced to a cumulative term of nine (9) years imprisonment.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Abuja (Court below). The Court below, in a reserved judgment delivered on the 22nd day of April, 2008, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant was further aggrieved with the decision of the court below and he now appealed to this court. A Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal was filed. In compliance with this court’s Rules, the parties settled briefs of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant distilled the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that: “I cannot see how any of his constitutional rights was infracted upon”, whereas the Record showed that the Appellant’s trial, conviction and sentence gravely breached his constitutional rights to:

(a) be informed and educated on his right to elect whether to defend the charge by himself or by counsel of his choice (s.36(6) (c) Constitution of the FRN 1999);

(b) have adequate time and facility to prepare for his defence (S. 36 (6) (b) Constitution of the FRN 1999);

(c) understand in detail the nature of the alleged charges against him (S. 36 (6) Constitution of the FRN 1999):

(d) know if the charges are truly those for which he has been tried on before (S. 36 (9) Constitution of the FRN 1999);

(e) fair hearing/fair trial (S. 36) Constitution of the FRN 1999;)

all which occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against him (Ground 2).

2.Was the Honourable court below right to have assumed that the Prosecutor obtained the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute the appellant when there is nothing on the Record to buttress same (Ground 1)

3. Did the court of Appeal not commit error in law in affirming the trial court’s maximum sentence particularly as the maximum sentence was based on the unsubstantiated and alleged three previous convictions of the appellant.”

Learned counsel for the respondent formulated two issues:

“I find the issues formulated by the ISSUE ONE: