Charles Igwe V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

The appellant was the 4th accused in amended Charge No. A/57C/2008 before the Anambra State High Court, Awka for the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. Before the arraignment could take place, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the other accused persons brought an application dated 5 January, 2012 challenging the competence of the information and the supporting proofs of evidence seeking the following orders:-

1. Dismissing or striking out the Proofs of Evidence in this matter as incompetent and an abuse of Court process
2. Quashing the information filed in this Court against the applicants as incompetent for failure to contain the proper Proofs of Evidence as required by Section 220(f) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2010.
3. Quashing or dismissing the information and the entire proceedings as the Honourable Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the 5th applicant who has not been served with any information, proof of evidence and hearing/arraignment notice.

1

Dismissing/striking out this proceedings for violating each of the applicants’ constitutional right to fair hearing.

5. Quashing the information as the Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offences as they were brought in violation of each of the applicants’ legal and constitutional rights to fair hearing.
6. Quashing the arraignment of the applicants on the information before this Court as the said information is incompetent and unsupported by proper proofs of evidence.The motion was supported with a 30-paragraph affidavit to which was annexed proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court in Charge No.MAW/194/2007. In paragraphs 11, 22, 23, 24 and 25 thereof, Jacinta Maduka, deposed to the following facts: –

“11 Upon careful review of the Proofs of Evidence served on the 1st applicant, it was discovered that the respondent refused or failed to include the exculpatory statements of the following material witnesses in the purported Proofs of Evidence:-

“(a) statement of Alice Nweke, who was referred to by the complainant as the “Abakaliki woman” who witnessed the incident, taken by the prosecution on 26/10/2007 which statement informed the

2

prosecution that the culprits of the offence were not the applicants but two persons who came in a motor cycle and left with the same. A copy of the said statement which was given to the 1st applicant by the police for his file is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.

(b) Statement of Chukwudi Okonye, taken by the prosecution on 23/10/2007, which supports the alibi of the 3rd applicant. A copy of the said statement which was given to the 3rd applicant by the police for his file is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”.

(c) Statement of Gabriel Honwo, taken by the prosecution on 26/10/2007, indicating that the police at B Division had investigated the matter and obtained witnesses, statements not included in the proofs of evidence. A copy of the said statement given to the 1st applicant by the police for his file is annexed as Exhibit, “D”.

22. By a Notice to produce for Inspection dated April 30, 2010, the applicants demanded on the prosecution to produce the material facilities that would enable the applicants to prepare for trial. A copy of the said Notice which is part of the record of this Court is annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”.

3

Till date, the prosecutor has refused or failed to produce the facilities demanded by Exhibit “F” or make any demanded materials available to the applicants.

24. On May 4, 2010, at Awka, Dr. E. S. C. Obiorah Esq.. informed me and I verily believe him that the applicants are in dire need of the facilities or materials in order to adequately prepare their defence and in order to properly cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The materials will assist the defence in investigating this matter to search for and discover witnesses and interview them in preparation for the trial. The applicants also need them to adequately carry out the examination of witnesses on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution.
25. The applicants also need the demanded facilities to adequately prepare for trial and avoid unnecessary surprises and ‘hide and seek’ on the part of the prosecution.”The motion was opposed and Ifeoma Francis, a litigation officer in the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, Awka deposed to a 39-paragraph affidavit in opposition. In paragraphs 23 and 25 of the counter-affidavit, she averred that:-

4

“23. That the defence is at liberty to call any witness they feel will advance their case.