Adamu Dauda V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal, Jos Division delivered on 23rd May, 2014 which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by a Jos Federal High Court.

The appellant was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for offences under Section 518 (5) of the Criminal Code. Section 5(1) and 27(1) of the Firearms Act and Section 15(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Jos Division. That Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court.

Still not satisfied with the conviction by the trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the appellant has appealed to this Court on one ground of appeal from which he formulated a sole issue for determination of this appeal. The sole issue reads:

Whether from the records of proceedings, there was a proper arraignment of the appellant before his trial, conviction and sentence by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents

1

adopted the sole issue formulated by the appellant.

The sole issue formulated by the appellant’s learned counsel shall be considered in resolving this appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal on 15th December, 2016 learned counsel for the appellant, R.George Esq adopted the appellant’s brief filed on 25/8/14 and urged the Court to allow the appeal, while learned counsel for the respondent C. Ihua-Maduenyi Esq, adopted the respondent’s brief filed on 8/9/14 and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm concurrent findings.

Learned counsel for the appellant observed that the appellant as one of the accused persons was not properly arraigned before the trial Court, contending that the charge was not sufficiently read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the Court. He further observed that the appellant’s plea to the charge was not recorded as provided by law. He submitted that where there is non-compliance with requirements for valid arraignment, the trial is a nullity. Reliance was placed on Yerima v. State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1231) p.25; Okoli v. State (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1281) p.385; Kayode v. State (2008) 1 NWLR (PT. 1068) P. 281.

Concluding he

2