Isiaka Mumini V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

The Appellant was tried for unlawful dealing in 10kg of cannabis sativa (Indian hemp). He pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was summarily convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment by the Federal High Court (Coram: Faji, FJ.). His conviction and sentence, upon appeal to the Court of Appeal (the Lower Court) where the sole issue was about the jurisdiction of the trial Court, were affirmed by the Lower Court.

Jurisdiction of the trial Federal High Court is still the sole issue in this further appeal brought by the convict Appellant. For the Appellant the sole issue has been couched thus by his counsel –

Whether having cognizance of the charge preferred against the Appellant at the trial Court, the Court below was correct when it upheld the decision of the said trial Court that it was seised of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings undertaken pursuant thereto

The charge, on which the proceedings culminating in the conviction and sentence of Appellant rested, reads thus –

That you, ISIAKA MUMINI, male, adult, on or about the 17th day of

1

December, 2011, at Nungurme Village of Gwanara District in Baruten Local Government Area of Kwara State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, without lawful authority, dealt in 10 Kilogrammes of cannabis sativa (otherwise known as Indian Hemp), a drug similar to cocaine, Heroin, LSD etc and thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 11(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 of Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

At the Lower Court the Appellant, contending that the Federal High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charge aforestated, argued that it is only the Magistrates Court that has been vested with jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 8(1) of the Indian Hemp Act to entertain the charge on which he was arraigned at the Federal High Court. Section 8(1) of the Indian Hemp Act provides –

8.(1). Every Magistrate in any part of Nigeria shall, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY ENACTMENT, have jurisdiction for the summary trial of any offence under Sections 4 -7 of this Act and may impose the Punishment provided by this Act for such an offence.

2

It appears from Section 3(2) of the Indian Hemp Act that any person charged with an offence of either importing Indian Hemp or dealing in Indian Hemp by knowingly “selling any Indian Hemp” shall “be tried summarily by a single Judge of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed”. The offence of dealing in or importing Indian Hemp under Section 3(2) of the Indian Hemp Act is clearly, by dint of Section 8(1) of the Act, not within the jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate’s Court. The offences within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court are those having to do with possession, selling and smoking, including being in possession of “any pipe or other utensil for use in connection with the smoking of Indian Hemp” or permitting, by the occupier, the use of any premises for the purpose of selling, preparing and/or the smoking of Indian Hemp. The offences under Sections 4-7 of the Indian Hemp Act are those in respect of which the Act vests jurisdiction in the Magistrate’s Courts to entertain. The jurisdiction is not stated expressly to be exclusive to the Magistrate’s Court. Thus, as what is not expressly prohibited is implicitly permitted;

3

the jurisdiction of the High Court having not been expressly prohibited is by implication permitted.