The Concept of Double Jeopardy in Nigerian Law

It is a notorious fact that there is a constitution in every country, i.e. a Ground Norms that is guiding their conduct.

What then is constitution?

Constitution can be define as a set of written rules and principles that govern the behavior and actions of a country, state, or institution. This constitution provide for many right, this right include the Right To Life (Sec 33), Right To Dignity of Human Persons (Sec 34), Right To Personal Liberty (35), Right To Fair Hearing (Sec 36) also dealing with Double Jeopardy and that is in Sub-sec (9) of the same section etc.

What is then Fair Hearing?

These is a fundamental principle of justice & due process, ensuring that individuals are treated justly and impartially in any proceeding.

Now, looking into this definition, we must be able to understand that double jeopardy is under “Fair Hearing” i.e a fundamental protection, by the virtue of section 36(9) of Nigeria Constitution 1999 as Amended provide that:-

“ No person who shows that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court.”

This Double jeopardy ensures that no individual is tried or punished twice for the same offense. This protection is supported by the guarantee of a fair hearing, which entitle the accused to a just and impartial trial.

So therefore, these principle safeguard individual rights prevent abuse of power and uphold the integrity of the legal process. With double jeopardy and fair hearing, the criminal justice system ensures that justice is served while protecting the innocent from unnecessary suffering and unjust treatment.

The Double Jeopardy principle is one such value protected by the system. It is a procedural safeguard, which bars a second trial then an accused person either acquitted or convicted after a full-fledged trial by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Every society maintains a system of Criminal Justice Administration (CJA) in order to punish the guilty and make the life of common man safe. In line of this statement, it is a notorious fact that where there is a breakdown of law and order in any given society, there is bound to be a sanction. The Criminal Justice System operates in accordance with the specific criminal statutes.

The rule against Double Jeopardy originally arose/derived from the maxim “NEMO DEBET BIS PUNIRI PRO UNO DELICITO – (NO ONE SHOULD BE PUNISHED TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENCE) i.e protection from repeated punishment for the same wrongdoing.

Abstract

The concept of “Double Jeopardy” has a wide-ranging i.e. it covers a large area across various disciplines from law and criminology and sociology. This legal context refers to the prohibition of trying an individual twice for the same offence. Going by the virtue of (SEC 36(9) of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended provide that;

“No person who shown that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that same offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court”.

Beyond the courtroom, the term is widely practice to describe disadvantages risks faced by isolate groups. This paper examines the dual layer of vulnerability inherent in “Double Jeopardy” scenarios, analyzing case studies and theoretical frameworks to understand its impacts. These concept guide someone in double trying the same offence with the same ingredient no matter the offence, the question is now that if the prosecutor make a changing of jurisdiction?, even changing of jurisdiction or providing a new evidence in order to make another trial to arose, the new evidence is not an excuse for double jeopardy shouldn’t arose

Now, by connecting or linking different situations or perspective to these contexts, this study underscores the pervasive nature of “Double Jeopardy” and proposes actionable insights for lessen its effects in both social and commercial settings.

What Then is Double Jeopardy?

This refers to the term which prevents an individual from being punished twice for the same offence. According to Prof. Wayne R. LaFave define Double Jeopardy as “a fundamental principle of criminal law that prohibits the state from prosecuting an individual twice for the same offence, or from imposing multiple punishments for the same crime.

In criminal law, double jeopardy is a procedural defense that ensures a person cannot be tried twice on the same charges following a legitimate conviction. The principle dates back to ancient legal traditions, such as Greek and Roman Laws, which prohibited retrying a person for the same crime once acquitted.

The Latin Maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” “No one should be troubled twice for the same offence. For example; In a situation whereby someone have been convicted for a murder, the person who was convicted cannot be re-convicted for a murder again or for the same offence with the same ingredient. We must understand that Double Jeopardy is different from the word Estoppel.

What is an Estoppel?

Estopel is principle that prevents a person from saying or asserting something that is inconsistent with an earlier act or statement, especially in cases where it was previously agreed to by law. In other words, it keeps people from lying or being inconsistent in two or more cases related to the same event or fact.

An Estoppel can be define as a principle that prevents a person from asserting or denying something that is contrary to what they have previously stated or done, especially if it would be unjust to allow them to do so. According to Prof. John William Salmond (1862-1924) define Estoppel as a principle of law which prevents a person from denying anything to the contrary of that which he has previously admitted or asserted, either by words or conduct, waived or renounced, or which has been adjudged and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

For Example;

Seller (S) represents to Buyer (B) that a property is zoned for commercial use. B relies on this representation and purchase the property. Later, S denies making the representation or claims that the property is actually zoned for residential use only. The question is now that is S estopped from denying the representation?

Instance Where Estoppel Can Arise through;

• Estoppel by deed:- these also known as estoppel by deed of transfer or by certificate.
• Estoppel by conduct:- these also known as estoppel by silence or by behavior or action.
• Estoppel by representation:- these also known as estoppel by statement of assertion.

Note that an Estoppel is used or can be arise in Civil Cases while Double Jeopardy is arise in Criminal Cases.

A key aspect of Double Jeopardy

• It must be an In pari material i.e the same matter on the same subject
• Twice punishment i.e. Double Jeopardy prohibits both multiple punishment and repeated prosecution.
• Protection from embarrassment i.e. it present unnecessary distress and financial burden on individuals.

Let look into this illustration;

Musa is tried and acquitted of robbery in Kwara State High, Ilorin Judicial Division Court. The prosecutor presents evidence that Musa was at the scene of the crime and had intention to commit the robbery. However, the defense presents an alibi witness who testifies that Musa was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. The judge acquits Musa.

Later, the same prosecution team re-charges Musa with the same robbery in Court, using the same evidence presented in the first trial, plus additional evidence that was not available in the first trial. The second trial takes place in a different jurisdiction, but the robbery occurred in the same location.

According to this scenario, we can understand that a person cannot be convicted twice for the same offence or crime with the same ingredient because the case has been acquitted by the judge. The Question is now that does the second trial violate the Double Jeopardy clause?

Answer:- YES, and in view of the scenario, the case must be between the same parties i.e. between Musa and the same second person, the same subject matter i.e. robbery and the court must have given their final judgment in respect of the first case. In line with this, there are some ingredient that must be proven or present before one can rely on double jeopardy, and they are;

• The case must be between the same parties.
• The same subject matter.
• The court must have given their final judgment about the case.

However, there are some possible arguments that could be made to justify the second trial:-

• Same might argue that the different jurisdiction means that the second trial is a new and separate proceeding.
• If the prosecution has discovered significant new evidence that was not available in the first trial, they might argue that this justifies a new trial.

But generally, the second trial would likely be considered a violation of Double Jeopardy, and the court would likely dismiss or reject the second trial.

Conclusion

Double Jeopardy refers to the term which prevents or protects individuals from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. This is to say that this concept is essential to ensure that individuals are not subjected to un-necessary harassment, anxiety or punishment.

This principle has several key aspects which are;

• Protection against repeated the same offence.
• Prohibition against double punishment for the same crime.
• Ensures that individuals are not tried or punished twice for the same crime.

In Islamic law, the concept of double jeopardy is also recognized & emphasized, as it is considered a violation of justice & fairness to try or punish someone twice for the same offence.

Now, we must be able to understand that double jeopardy is a vital protection that ensures individuals are treated fairly and justly under the law, and its principles are widely recognized and applied in various legal systems around the world.

---

About Author