Obum Osakwe V. Federal Government of Nigeria (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

The appellant, a legal practitioner and a counsel retained by one Mrs. Amaka Anajemba, was on 5/2/2004 arraigned with his client before the High Court of the FCT Coram Gummi, CJ in Charge No. CR/14/2004 on an eight count charge relating to the giving of gratification to public officers contrary to and punishable under sections 97, 118 and 169 of the Penal Code. The charges were read and the appellant entered a ‘not guilty’ plea. He was then remanded in prison custody.

On the 6/2/2004, he filed an application for bail which was supported by an affidavit and a further affidavit. The prosecution filed a counter-affidavit and the appellant filed a reply to the counter-affidavit. The court on 18/2/04 heard arguments on the application and on the 23/2/04 in a considered ruling refused the application for bail.

The appellant dissatisfied has now appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal. The grounds shorn of their particulars are listed hereunder;

GROUND 1

The learned trial Judge erred in law by coming to the conclusion that “a reasonable presumption of the accused’s guilt exists” and that the prosecution/respondents have succeeded in raising a reasonable presumption of criminal responsibility on the part of the applicant and thereby refusing to grant bail pending trial to the appellant upon such ground.

GROUND 2

The learned trial Judge erred in law, in relying upon an extraneous matter not before the court, namely a purported video recording, to deny bail to the appellant.

GROUND 3

The learned trial Judge erred in law, in dismissing the appellant’s application for bail and refusing him bail without consideration of the materials placed before him by the appellant and the applicable principle thereto.

GROUND 4

The learned trial Judge did not properly exercise the discretion to grant bail by refusing to grant bail to the appellant having regard to the materials and affidavit evidence before the court.

From the above grounds the following issues were distilled by the appellant;

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing bail to the appellant on the ground that a reasonable presumption of criminal responsibility exists on the part of the appellant.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to rely upon a video recording not tendered before the court to hold that the appellant would jump bail and hereby deny him bail.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge properly exercised the discretion to grant bail by refusing to grant bail to the appellant, pending his trial having regard to the materials and affidavit evidence before the said court, which materials were given no consideration whatsoever by the said court.

The respondent raised only this issue in his brief of argument: