Dr. Lawrence U. C. Atuana v. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

Prolegomenon

On 23rd January, 2012, the respondent was granted leave by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to prefer a criminal charge against the appellant in charge No. FCT/HC/CR/129/2011: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Lawrence U. C. Atuana. The respondent then preferred an eleven-count charge against the appellant for alleged infractions contrary to various provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and the Penal Code Act.

The appellant could not see his way clear with the competence of the charge, whereupon he filed a preliminary objection on 1st March, 2012 praying the lower court for the following orders:

1. Strike out the eleven count charge/information referred to as No. CR/129/11 for want of jurisdiction.
2. Quash all the eleven count charge in charge No. CR/129/11 purportedly filed before this honourable court against Dr. Lawrence U. C. Atuana.

The grounds for the preliminary objection are as follows:

a. The said charge was not brought in accordance with the law and due process contrary to and in defiance of the express provisions of sections 9(2), 10(a) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2003 (the Act).

b. The provisions of section 51 of the Act reaffirms that the Laws governing the investigation of the finances of a political party and the internal management of its finances are: The Nigeria Constitution (with particular reference to sections 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227 and 228 thereof) and the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) with particular reference to sections 86, 88 and 89 thereof.

c. The accused/applicant is not a public officer within the meaning and intendment of section 2 of the Act.

d. Count Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, (sic) embodied in the charge No. CR/129/11 were brought under a non-existent law.

e. The Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission (the Commission) and/or its officers lack the vires to file this charge/information.

f. The conditions precedent to filing this charge against the accused/applicant were not complied.

g. Section 140 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with in respect of counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 embodied in this charge.

h. The eleven-count charge against the accused constitutes gross abuse of process and injustice to the accused/applicant (the applicant) in that proceedings in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2384/ 10 and suit No. FHC/ABJ CS/396/2011, which formed the basis of the charge before this honourable court, are still pending and were pending when the instant charge was filed against the applicant on 15/9/2011 and in defiance of the aforesaid two pending suits.

i. The proof of evidence when taken in its totality did not disclose any prima facie case against the applicant to warrant his trial before this High Court of Justice or any other court of law on any of the eleven count charge in that it did not comply with the Criminal Procedure (Application to prefer A charge in the High Court) Rules, 1970.