Blessing Toyin Omokuwajo V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division (court below) delivered on 10th November, 2010. Therein, the conviction of the appellant by the Federal High Court, Sokoto (trial court) for offences under Sections 15(a) and 16 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act, 2003 (as amended) was affirmed. The court below, in affirming the conviction of the appellant, also varied her sentence, suo motu, by increasing it from two years in respect of each count to run concurrently from the date of the appellant’s arrest as ordered by the trial court to 7 and 5 years respectively, also to run concurrently from the date of the appellant’s arrest which was on 21/02/2010.

The facts leading to this appeal are not in dispute. The appellant was arrested by Officers of the Nigerian Immigration Service (Anti-Human Trafficking Unit) on February 21, 2010 at Yauri in Kebbi State of Nigeria. She was handed over to Officers of the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons and Other Related Matters (NAPTIP) on February 23, 2010.

The appellant was thereafter arraigned on a six (6) count charge before the trial court on 16th March, 2010 for offences touching on human trafficking contrary to Sections 15(a) and 16 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act 2003 (as amended). As extant on page 25 of the records, the appellant, on 16th March, 2010 pleaded guilty to all the six counts after the court noted at page 25 of the record thus;- ‘Charge read to accused who understand it and pleaded as follow.’ She was consequently summarily found guilty, convicted and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment on each of the six counts contained in the charge; with an order that sentence should run concurrently with effect from the date of the appellant’s arrest.

The appellant felt dissatisfied and appealed to the court below which dismissed the appeal as lacking merit. The conviction was affirmed. The learned justices of the court below, suo motu, varied the appellant’s sentence to seven (7) and five (5) years imprisonment to run concurrently from the date of the appellant’s arrest (21-2-2010).

The appellant felt unhappy with the stance of the court below and appealed to this court vide a Notice of Appeal dated 10th November, 2010 which was accompanied by seven (7) grounds of appeal.

On 10th January, 2013 when the appeal was heard, learned counsel on each side of the divide adopted and relied on the brief of argument filed on behalf of his/her client. The appellant’s counsel urged that the appeal be allowed. The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, urged that the appeal be dismissed.

The five (5) issues formulated for the due determination of the appeal by the appellant, as contained in pages 4-5 of her brief of argument, are as follows:-

“(a) Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law to have affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court when there was nothing in the records to show strict compliance with Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. (Relates to ground 6 of the ground of appeal).

(b) Were the learned justices of the Court of Appeal correct in law to have affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court by way of summary trial when there was failure to explain the consequence of a plea of guilty to the appellant (Relates to ground 5 of the grounds of appeal)

(c) Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have suo motu raised the inadequacy of sentence and conviction of the appellant and varying same in the absence of a cross appeal and opportunity to address the court below by the parties (Relates to grounds 2 & 3 of the grounds of appeal).

(d) Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal can be said to have given the appellant a fair hearing throughout the duration of the appeal (sic) heard and determined when it failed to determine the issues formulated by the appellant or respondent in their respective briefs of argument nor formulated any issue for its determination before arriving at its decision (Relates to grounds 1 & 4 of the grounds of appeal).

(e) Was the decision of the learned justices of the Court of Appeal correct in law (This relates to ground 7 of the grounds of appeal).”

On behalf of the respondent, the two issues decoded for a proper determination of the appeal read as follows:-