Amaka Martina Anajemba V. The Federal Government of Nigeria (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALBERT GBADEBO ODUYEMI, J.C.A.

The appellant was the 2nd of seven persons (the last 4 of the accused persons being corporate bodies) arraigned on 6th February, 2004, before the learned Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

They were charged on an 86 count charge on offences of the contravention – inter alia, of: sections 1(1), 7(3), and 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Decree No. 13 of 1995 as amended by Decree 62 of 1999; and sections 97, 364 and 366 of the Penal Code.

The pleas of the first three accused persons were taken. Each pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The learned trial Chief Judge then entered a “not guilty” plea in respect of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th accused persons, who were corporate bodies.

By a motion on notice filed in the lower court on 6th February, 2004, the 2nd accused person (appellant herein, who shall hereafter be called “the appellant”) moved the lower court under section 341(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, sections 35(4) and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and S.18(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Decree as amended, for bail pending her trial.

In support of her application, the appellant filed an affidavit; a further affidavit, a further and better affidavit and a further and additional affidavit. In response, the respondent filed a counter affidavit and, later, a counter-affidavit to the appellant’s further and better affidavit.

The learned trial Chief Judge took addresses from both learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as for the prosecution.

In a considered ruling delivered on 23rd February, 2004, the court refused the pre-trial application for bail of the applicant.

Being aggrieved, she filed a notice of appeal to this court.

The notice of appeal contained four grounds of appeal which, shorn of their respective particulars read as follows:

“Ground 1:

The learned trial Judge erred in law, by refusing to grant bail pending trial to the appellant on the erroneous conclusion that the proof of evidence suggested that the appellant played active roles in the alleged fraud.

Ground 2: