Chukwukelu Sunday Calistus v. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, sitting in Abuja presided over by Ademola, J. delivered on the 21st March, 2014.

The appellant was arrested at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on or about the 1st January, 2014 on the allegation that he imported 1,470 kilograms of hard drugs subsequently confirmed to be cocaine into the country.

He was later arraigned on a lone charge pursuant to section 11(a) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap N30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

He pleaded guilty to the said count and after a review of the facts stated on oath by the lone witness of the prosecution who was not subjected to any cross-examination by the defence, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Dissatisfied, the appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court in a notice of appeal filed on the 16th April, 2014 containing two grounds which said notice of appeal was subsequently amended via the amended notice of appeal filed on the 14th February, 2022 but deemed properly filed and served on the 30th June, 2022 containing three grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Uwazuruonye adopted the appellant’s amended brief filed on the 11th February, 2022 but also deemed properly filed and served on the 30th June, 2022 as the argument of the appellant in this appeal. The respondent failed to file any brief despite being served with the appellant’s brief and other originating processes in the appeal.

The appellant distilled three issues from the three grounds of appeal thus:

1. Whether the trial of the appellant on the charge other than the charge referred to in the affidavit in support of the charge does not violate the appellant’s right to fair hearing? (Ground 1)
2. Whether the charge upon which the appellant was arraigned, tried and convicted is not fundamentally defective which renders the arraignment and trial a nullity? (Ground 2)
3. Whether the trial court did not err in law by imposing maximum sentence with hard labour which is in excess of the punishment for the offence.

I will take the issues together.

On the first issue the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the initial charge filed against the appellant was supported by an affidavit and carried a different date from the one read to him in court and to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted.

He submitted that the difference in the two charges constituted an infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights as trial must be conducted in accordance with the formulated rules to ensure that justice is done. He referred to section 36(1) and (5) of the Constitution, Abdullahi v. State (2012) LPELR-20852 (CA) and Akwa Ibom State College of Education Afaha Nsit v. Ekong (2008) LPELR-8446(CA).

The learned counsel further submitted that the charge upon which the appellant was convicted was defective as it was vague and not supported by an affidavit verifying that investigation had been concluded. He referred to the definition of the word ‘vague’ in Nuhu v. Ogele (2004) 9 WRN 95; (2003) LPELR- 2077 (SC).

He submitted that the charge was incapable of being understood by the appellant and that the record did not indicate that it was explained to him before he made his plea. He then urged the court to hold that pursuant to the combined effects of section 36 (6) of the Constitution and section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code the failure to ensure that the appellant understood the charge including sentencing implications rendered appellant’s conviction based on his guilty plea a nullity. He referred to Usman v. State (2006) LPELR-11568 (CA).

The learned counsel argued further that the failure of the learned trial Judge to ensure that the charge was comprehensible cannot be cured by the guilty plea of the appellant and that failure of the trial Court to adhere to the principles of natural justice must inure to the benefit of the appellant. He referred to Ezeogwum v. COP (2020) LPELR-50103 (CA).