Joshua Chibi Dariye V The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC

In a petition received by the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation in May, 2004, the appellant, then the Governor of Plateau State of Nigeria, was accused of various offences bordering on money laundering, abuse of office and corruption. The petition was referred to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for investigation and prosecution, if need be.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the respondent filed an application before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory for leave to prefer a charge against the appellant. A proof of evidence was prepared and attached to the application. On 13th July, 2007 leave was granted to the respondent to prefer a criminal charge against the appellant. Upon his arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all the 23 counts of the charge preferred against him. The matter was adjourned to 13th November, 2007 for the prosecution to open its case. The appellant was admitted to bail.

On 13th November, 2007 the date to which the case was adjourned for the respondent to open its case, the appellant brought a motion before the trial Court praying for an order to quash the 23 count charge against him on diverse grounds, including lack of locus standi to prosecute him and lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and determine the case. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit and a written address in opposition to the motion.

On 10th December, 2007 the learned trial Judge denied the application and dismissed same. Appellant’s appeal to the lower Court was dismissed on 17th June, 2010.

Still aggrieved, the appellant, by a notice of appeal filed on 13th July, 2007 appealed to this Court on eight grounds endorsed on the notice. From the eight grounds of appeal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant distilled the following five issues for determination:

“ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the lower Court was not wrong in affirming the ruling of the trial Court that the proofs of evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the Appellant. (Distilled from Ground 4).

ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court to assume jurisdiction to try the charges for the offences alleged against the Appellant in the light of the clear provisions, inter alia, of sections 257(1) and 299(a} (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Section 4 of the Penal Code Act. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3).

ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the lower Court was not wrong when it upheld the decision of the trial Court that the proper venue for the trial of the offences with which the appellant was charged was the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, and by so doing, the right of the appellant to fair hearing was not infringed. {Ground 8).

ISSUE NO. 4: In view of the misdirection of law committed by the learned Justices of the Court below, whether their judgment is not perverse and liable to be set aside. (Distilled from Grounds 5 and 6).

ISSUE NO. 5: Whether the respondent, not being the Attorney-General of Plateau State, can without obtaining a fiat from the Attorney-General aforesaid, undertake the prosecution of the appellant based on allegation of misappropriating funds belonging to Plateau State exclusively over which the respondent has no legal backing. (Distilled from Ground 7).”

The five issues are contained in the appellant’s amended brief of argument.

In his own brief of argument, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent isolated the following four issues for the Court to resolve:

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in affirming the decision of the trial High Court that a prima facie case was disclosed against the appellant in the proofs of evidence placed before the Court. (See Ground 4).