Dr. Joseph Amedu V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice Ishaq Bello dismissing the application to quash Charge No. CR/8/04 preferred against the Appellant.

The facts of the case put briefly are that the Appellant and another person were arraigned before the learned trial Judge on 7th December, 2004. The Appellant and the other person charged along with him were charged under the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act for conspiracy, diversion of funds and conferring corrupt and unfair advantage upon themselves. After arraignment the Appellant was later granted bail on 9th December, 2004 and the matter was adjourned till 27/1/2005 for hearing. On 25/1/2005, the Appellant filed an application dated 24/1/2005 praying the lower court to quash the Charge preferred against him. See pages 45-46 of the Record. The application was heard on 15/3/2005 and Ruling thereon was eventually delivered on 28/4/2005. The lower court in its Ruling dismissed the Appellant’s application on the ground that section 61 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 provided for an irrebuttable presumption of law and that the Charge preferred against the Appellant was different from the accusation in respect of which he was exonerated by the DPP. .

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the lower court lodged an appeal against the same by filing a Notice of Appeal on 10/5/2005. The Notice of Appeal contains three (3) grounds of appeal.

The grounds without their particulars read thus: –

” GROUND 1

The learned trial judge erred in law when he delivered the ruling in the judge’s chambers, contrary to the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

GROUND 2

The learned trial Judge erred (sic) the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000 in law when he held that the word “deemed” as used under Section 61 of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission Act is a presumption of law and therefore irrebuttable.

GROUND 3

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the accusations made to the police, subject matter of the advice of the DPP is different from the current charge.”

The appeal was entertained by this Court on 20/10/2008. Oladele Gbadeyan, learned lead counsel for the Appellant in urging this Court to allow the appeal relied on and adopted Appellant’s brief of argument dated 30/9/2005 but deemed as properly filed and served on 26/4/2006 as well as Appellant’s Reply brief dated 22/11/2007 but deemed as properly filed and served on 27/11/2007.

Paul Ahmed Bassi of counsel for the Respondent in urging that the appeal be dismissed relied on and adopted Respondent’s brief of argument dated 12/12/2006 but deemed as properly filed and served on 21/5/2007.

In his brief of argument the Appellant formulated two (2) Issues for the determination of the appeal. The Issues are: –