Alhaji Murtala Shariff V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the summary conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the Kaduna State High Court in a judgment delivered on 23/7/15 by M.T.M. Aliyu J, on account of his plea admitting the offences against him, brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on behalf of the Respondent.

The Appellant was arraigned on a two count charge of forgery and using as genuine a forged document, punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code, Laws of Kaduna State 1991. Based on his plea of guilt, he was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. It is against this conviction and sentence that he has filed, on 18/8/15, a Notice of Appeal to this Court.

Briefs of argument were filed by both parties. In the Appellant’s Brief, settled by Shittu M. Inuwa Esq. dated 20th November 2015 and filed on 27th November 2015, two issues for determination were formulated, namely:
1. Whether the trial, summary conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant by the trial judge is not a nullity by reason of the apparent trial Court

1

judge’s failure to strictly comply with mandatory provisions of Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Laws of Kaduna State 1991 and Section 36(6a) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
2. Whether it was right for the trial Court judge to have summarily convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the offences charged on account of this plea without specifying in his judgment the relevant law under which the trial Court judge so convicted and sentenced the Appellant.

In the Respondent’s Brief, settled by Nasiru Salele Esq. dated 11th Feb 2016 and filed on 15th Feb 2016, a lone issue was formulated, to wit:
Whether the arraignment upon which the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant was valid in law.

Learned Counsel to the Appellant further filed, on 1/3/16, a Reply Brief dated 29/02/2016.

The learned counsel to the Appellant, arguing his first issue for determination, has submitted that the Appellant’s trial, conviction and sentence by the trial Court, even though the Appellant admitted the allegations against him, should not be allowed to stand, in view of the obvious defect in his arraignment by the trial

2

Court. Citing the case of Edet V State (2009) All FWLR Part 463 Page 1430 @ 1441 Paras E-H learned Counsel submitted that where there is a defect in the procedural requirements or where there is an invalid or improper arraignment of an accused person at the trial Court, as in the instant case, the proceedings, no matter how well conducted, are rendered null and void. The proceedings, he said, fell short of the requirements of the law relating to proper arraignment of the Appellant, as provided under Sections 187 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Laws of Kaduna State 1991.

Conceding that the 1st and 2nd procedural requirements given in the case of Rufai V State (2001) FWLR Part 65 Page 435 @ 447 Paras A-C were complied with, he submitted that the trial Judge failed to comply with the 3rd requirement. Failure by the trial Court to ask the Appellant to plead to the charges brought against him and inform him of his right to either plead “guilty” or “not guilty” to the charges, denied him the opportunity of knowledge and right in his defence, as prescribed under Section 187 (1) of the CPC. This denial rendered the Appellant’s trial perverse and occasioned a

3

substantial miscarriage of justice.